Section 271(1)(b) of the Income Tax Act

The decision most relied on for Section 271(1)(b) is Hindustan Steel Ltd. v. State of Orissa (83 ITR 26), cited in 502 of the 2,912 judgments on BharatTax that turn on this section.

Leading authorities on Section 271(1)(b)

Hindustan Steel Ltd. v. State of Orissa
83 ITR 26 · 1972 · Supreme Court
502
citing judgments

An order imposing penalty for failure to carry out a statutory obligation results from quasi-criminal proceedings. Penalty is not ordinarily imposed unless the party acted deliberately in defiance of law, was guilty of contumacious or dishonest conduct, or acted in conscious disregard of their obligation.

Velu Palandar v. DCIT
83 ITR 683 · 1972 · High Court
94
citing judgments

The opportunity of hearing provided to an assessee must be real, effective, and realistic, not merely notional, and tax authorities are incumbent to decide cases on their merits after affording due opportunity.

CIT v. Subodh Gupta
54 Taxmann.com 343 · 2015 · High Court
29
citing judgments

In the absence of material to show a net profit rate, the presumptive net profit rate of 8% under section 44AD can be used for estimating income. However, this 8% is not a sacrosanct profit ratio and depends on the specific facts of each case.

Vama Apparels (India) (P) Ltd. v. ACIT
102 Taxmann.com 398 · 2019 · High Court
22
citing judgments

A substantial delay in filing an appeal requires a proper explanation for the bulk of the period, not necessarily each day.

Smt. Rekha Rani v. DCIT
60 Taxmann.com 131 · 2015 · High Court
21
citing judgments

Penalty under Section 271(1)(b) for non-compliance with notices under Section 143(2) should be restricted to the first default only, as each notice should not trigger a separate penalty.

Rekha Rani v. DCIT
154 ITD 617 · 2015 · ITAT
19
citing judgments

Penalty under section 271(1)(b) cannot be imposed for each and every notice issued under section 143(2) that remains uncomplied with; it should be restricted to the first default only.

Bharat Aluminium Company Ltd. v. Union of India
134 Taxmann.com 187 · 2022 · High Court
18
citing judgments

An assessee has a vested right to a personal hearing in faceless assessment proceedings under section 144B. The granting of a personal hearing is not discretionary and must be provided based on the facts of each case, upholding the principles of natural justice.

M/S J.T. (India) Exports And Another v. Union Of India And Another
262 ITR 269 · 2003 · High Court
18
citing judgments

The principle of natural justice is essential for legal justice, and it can supplement or correct legal justice when the latter fails due to technicalities or omissions in law.

Oriental Investment Co. Ltd. v. CIT
32 ITR 664 · 1957 · Supreme Court
13
citing judgments

A finding of fact by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal can be challenged as erroneous in law under section 66(1) if it is not supported by any evidence or is perverse.

CIT v. K.Ρ. Madhusudanan
246 ITR 218 · 2000 · High Court
12
citing judgments

Penalty for concealment of income requires circumstances that reasonably point to the conclusion that the disputed amount represented income and the assessee consciously concealed particulars or deliberately furnished inaccurate particulars. An assessee must offer an acceptable explanation for undisclosed income or inaccurate particulars to rebut the presumption of concealment.

Judgments on Section 271(1)(b)

Deepak Kumar Kanjibhai Patel, Mumbai vs. ITO 24(1)(5), Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2744/MUM/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Oct 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Ravish Soodshri Deepak Kumar Kanjibhai Ito-24(1)(5), Patel, B-503, 5Th Floor, 523, Floor, Parimal Chambers, Shivalaya Heights, Vs. Lalbaug, Parel Veera Desai Raod Andheri (E), Mumbai-400012 Mumbai-400058 Pan – Ayrpp4225F Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Ms. Ruchi M. Rathod, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Chaitanya Anjaria, D.R
Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 271(1)(b)

Jayanti Dalmia, New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

The appeals are dismissed

ITA 3926/DEL/2015[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Oct 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: Shri Vinod Kumar BindalFor Respondent: Shri S. S. Rana, CIT DR
Section 132Section 142Section 142(1)Section 153ASection 271Section 271(1)(b)

Smt. Alka Gupta, Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward -44(2), Kolkata

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee (in ITA No

ITA 1553/KOL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata03 Oct 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm & Dr. A.L. Saini, Am Smt. Alka Gupta Vs. Ito, Ward-44(2), Kolkata T/2A/1, Gurudas Dutta Garden Lane, 3, Govt. Place(West), Kolkata – Ultadanga, Kolkata – 700 067. 700 067. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aczpg 9407 A (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) .. & M/S. Vijay Wire Industries Vs. Ito, Ward-44(2), Kolkata T/2A/1, Gurudas Dutta Garden Lane, 3, Govt. Place(West), Kolkata – Ultadanga, Kolkata – 700 067. 700 067. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aacfv 2057 N (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) ..

For Appellant: Shri Soumitra Choudhury, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri A. Bhattacharjee, Addl. CIT
Section 142(2)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(b)

M/S. Vijay Wire Industries, Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward - 44(2), Kolkata

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee (in ITA No

ITA 1552/KOL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata03 Oct 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm & Dr. A.L. Saini, Am Smt. Alka Gupta Vs. Ito, Ward-44(2), Kolkata T/2A/1, Gurudas Dutta Garden Lane, 3, Govt. Place(West), Kolkata – Ultadanga, Kolkata – 700 067. 700 067. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aczpg 9407 A (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) .. & M/S. Vijay Wire Industries Vs. Ito, Ward-44(2), Kolkata T/2A/1, Gurudas Dutta Garden Lane, 3, Govt. Place(West), Kolkata – Ultadanga, Kolkata – 700 067. 700 067. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aacfv 2057 N (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) ..

For Appellant: Shri Soumitra Choudhury, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri A. Bhattacharjee, Addl. CIT
Section 142(2)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(b)

Rahul Garg, Morena vs. ACIT Circle-II, Gwalior

In the result, all the appeals are allowed

ITA 171/AGR/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Agra25 Sept 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: The Learned Cit (Appeals) Who

Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 271Section 271(1)(b)

M/S. Heritage Jvm Buiilders P Ltd, Agra vs. DCIT Central Circle, Agra

In the result, all the appeals are allowed

ITA 397/AGR/2017[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Agra25 Sept 2018AY 2008-09

Bench: The Learned Cit (Appeals) Who

Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 271Section 271(1)(b)

Shri Shankar Lal Sharma, Jaipur vs. Income Tax Officer, Jaipur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 46/JPR/2018[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur25 Sept 2018AY 2007-08
For Appellant: Shri R.S. Poonia (C.A.)For Respondent: Shri J.C. Kulhari (JCIT)
Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 271(1)(b)

Deepak Kumar Kanjibhai Patel, Mumbai vs. ITO 24(1)(5), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2743/MUM/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Sept 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri R.C.Sharma, Am & Shri Ram Lal Negi, Jm Shri Deepak Kumar Vs. Ito – 24(1)(5)-523, Kanjibhai Patel Parimal Chambers B-503, 5Th Floor Lalbaug, Mumbai – 400 012 Shivalaya Heights Veera Desai Road Andheri(W), Mumbai – 400 058 Pan/Gir No.Ayrpp4225F (Appellant) .. (Respondent)

Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(b)

Shri Rajeshkumar Babulal Patel, Mehsana vs. The Income Tax Officer, Patan

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 966/AHD/2016[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad19 Sept 2018AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh & Ms. Madhumita Roy

For Appellant: Shri Y.K. Gaika, ARFor Respondent: Shri Anand Kumar, Sr.DR
Section 144Section 147Section 68

Shri Amar Bharti, Jaipur vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Ward-1-3, Jaipur

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 888/JPR/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur14 Sept 2018AY 2015-16

Bench: Or At The Time Of Hearing Of Appeal.”

For Appellant: Shri K.L. Moolchandani (CA)For Respondent: Shri J.C. Kulhari (JCIT)
Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(B)Section 271(1)(b)

M/S Maa Engineering, Kolkata vs. ACIT, Cir-51, Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 739/KOL/2016[2010-2011]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata14 Sept 2018AY 2010-2011

Bench: Shri J. Sudhakar Reddy, Am & Smt. Madhumita Roy, Jm] Assessment Year: 2010-11 M/S. Maa Engineering..……………………………………………………..................................Appellant 37, B.T. Road, Sukhchar, Kolkata – 700 115 [Pan : Aaifm 7800 L] A.C.I.T, Cir 51, Kolkata.................................................................................................Respondent Manicktala Civic Centre, Block-3, 2Nd Floor, Ultadanga, Uttarapan Complex, Kolkata – 700 054. Appearances By: Shri Sunil Surana, Ar Appearing On Behalf Of The Assessee Shri Saurabh Kumar, Addl. Cit, Sr. Dr Appearing On Behalf Of The Assessee Date Of Concluding The Hearing : September 12, 2018 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : September 14, 2018 Order Per Madhumita Roy, Jm The Instant Appeal Has Been Filed Before Us By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 11.01.2016 Passed By The Ld. Cit(A) -15, Kolkata Arising Out Of The Order Dated 11.03.2013 Passed By The Acit Circle 51, Kolkata For The A.Y. 2010-11. 2. The Main Grievance Of The Assessee Is This That The Ld. Cit(A) Has Erred In Law & In Fact In Adopting The Net Profit Rate At 8% Ignoring The Assessee’S Passed Records As Well As The Turnover Of The Business. Further That The Income Estimated By The Ld. Cit(A) At Rs. 27,32,914/- As Against The Declared Income At Rs. 8,46,472/- Is Highly Excessive & Bad In Law.

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 144Section 271(1)(b)Section 274

Sri Asesh Kumar Jana, Paschim Medinipur vs. ITO, Ward-1(2), Midnapur, Paschim Medinipur

In the result, the appeals filed by the Assessee are dismissed

ITA 2095/KOL/2014[2004-2005]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata10 Sept 2018AY 2004-2005
Section 271(1)(b)

Sh. Shamim Ahmed, Muzaffarnagar vs. ITO, Shamli

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 6722/DEL/2014[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 Sept 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Suchitra Kambleassessment Year : 2011-12 Shamim Ahmed, Ito, Ward- 1, C/O. Prem Prakash, Advocate, Shamli. 183/2, North Civil Lines, Vs. Muzaffarnagar.

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri B. S. Rajpurohit, Sr. DR
Section 271(1)(b)

N.D.G. Estates Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward - 7(1), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 1614/KOL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata05 Sept 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri M.Balaganesh, Am & Hon’Ble Shri S.S.Viswanethra Ravi, Jm] I.T.A No. 1614/Kol/2017 Assessment Year : 2012-13 N.D.G. Estates Pvt. Ltd. -Vs- Ito, Ward 7(1), Kolkata [Pan: Aaccn 2179 A] (Appellant) (Respondent) For The Appellant : Shri R.K. Singh, Advocate For The Respondent : Smt. Ranu Biswas, Addl. Cit Date Of Hearing : 23.08.2018 Date Of Pronouncement : 05.09.2018 Order

For Appellant: Shri R.K. Singh, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Ranu Biswas, Addl. CIT
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 144Section 271(1)(b)

Sh. Gurvinder Singh Gill, Amritsar vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Tarn Taran

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 649/ASR/2017[0]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar16 Aug 2018

Bench: Sh. Sanjay Arora & Sh. N.K.Choudhryita No.649(Asr)/2017 Assessment Year:2008-09

For Appellant: Sh. P.N. Arora (Ld. Adv.)For Respondent: Smt. Gautam Deb (Ld. DR)
Section 143(2)Section 144Section 250(6)Section 271Section 271(1)(b)

M/S Nageshwar Builders Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 4559/DEL/2015[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Aug 2018AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri O.P. Kantassessment Year: 2006-07 Nageshwar Builders Pvt. Ltd., Vs. Dcit, Flat No. 4-R.R., Apartment, Cent. Circle 15 (Cent. Circle- 3-4, Manglapuri, Mehrauli, 14), New Delhi New Delhi Pan :Aakcs1698B (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 132Section 142Section 144Section 271Section 271(1)(b)Section 4

M/S Lakshya Consultants Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 4478/DEL/2015[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Aug 2018AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri O.P. Kantassessment Year: 2006-07 M/S. Lakshya Consultants Vs. Dcit, Pvt. Ltd., Cent. Circle-15 (Cent. Circle- Flat No. 4-Rr, Apartments, 14), New Delhi 3-4, Manglapuri, Mehrauli, New Delhi Pan : Aaacl7773J (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 132Section 144Section 271Section 271(1)(b)

Sh. Baldev Singh, Chandigarh vs. ITO, W-3(2), Chandigarh

In the result appeal of the Assessee is allowed

ITA 292/CHANDI/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh06 Aug 2018AY 2014-15

Bench: Smt. Diva Singh & Dr. B.R.R. Kumarassessment Year: 2014-15

For Appellant: Shri. Tej Mohan singhFor Respondent: Smt. Chandrakanta
Section 142(1)Section 271(1)(b)

Aristo Infracon Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward-9(1), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed for non-prosecution

ITA 1462/KOL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata06 Aug 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri M.Balaganesh, Am & Hon’Ble Shri S.S.Viswanethra Ravi, Jm] I.T.A No. 1462/Kol/2017 Assessment Year : 2012-13 Aristo Infracon Pvt. Ltd. -Vs- Ito Ward-9(1), Kolkata [Pan: Aakca 1648 K] (Appellant) (Respondent) For The Appellant : None For The Respondent : Shri S. Mukherjee, Addl. Cit Date Of Hearing : 06.08.2018 Date Of Pronouncement : 06.08.2018 Order Per M.Balaganesh, Am 1. This Appeal Of The Assessee Arises Out Of The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-3, Kolkata [In Short The Ld Cita] In Appeal No. 1947/Cit(A)-3/W-9(1)/15-16 Dated 29.05.2017 Passed Against The Order Passed By The Ito, Ward-9(1), Kolkata [In Short The Ld. Ao] Under Section 271(1)(B) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’) Dated 31.08.2015 For The Asst Year 2012-13. 2. This Appeal Was Listed For Hearing On Several Occasions. On The Date Of Previous Hearing On 20.06.2018 None Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee & The Case Was Adjourned To 06.08.2018 & The Notice Was Sent To The Assessee Through Rpad. On 06.08.2018 None Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee & No Adjournment Petition Was Filed. It Means That Assessee Is Not Interested To Prosecute The Appeal. Hence The Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Liable To Be Dismissed For Non Prosecution. For This View We Find Support From The Following Decisions :-

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri S. Mukherjee, Addl. CIT
Section 271(1)(B)

Jagannath Sajan Jote, Ahmednagar vs. Income-Tax Officer

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 2086/PUN/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Pune03 Aug 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Kishor PhadkeFor Respondent: Dr. Vivek Aggarwal
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 250Section 271(1)(b)