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)

Manavkumar M. Mehta ( HUF), Mumbai vs. ITO 14(1)(1) (Erstwhile), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is hereby ordered to be allowed

ITA 7209/MUM/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Feb 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri G. S. Pannu, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.7209/Mum/2016 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2012-13) बिधम/ Manav Kumar M. Mehta Ito 14(1)(1) (Erstwhile) Ito 18(2)(3) (Present) 2Nd (Huf) 297, Tardeo Rd, Vs. 1St Floor, Willie Maniosn, Floor, Earnest House, E Opp Bank Of India, Nanan Nariman Point Mumbai Chowk, Mumbai Pin:400007 Pin: 400021 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aafhm0434B (अपीलाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) Assessee By: Ms Nimisha Bothra (Ar) Revenue By: Shri Saurabh Deshpande (Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 09.02.2018 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 23.02.2018 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh, Jm: The Assessee Has Filed The Present Appeal Against The Order Dated 28.09.2016 Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-29, Mumbai [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Cit(A)”] Relevant To The A.Y. 2012-13 Wherein The Penalty Levied By The Ao U/S 271(1)(B) Of The Act Has Been Confirmed.

For Appellant: Ms Nimisha Bothra (AR)For Respondent: Shri Saurabh Deshpande (DR)
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 271(1)(b)

Ratan Kumar Paul, Dakshin Dinajpur vs. DCIT, CC-Xxvii, Kolkata

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed

ITA 1504/KOL/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata21 Feb 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri N.V.Vasudevan & Shri Waseem Ahmedassessment Year :2012-13 Ratan Kumar Paul V/S. Dcit, Cc-Xxvii, Thana Road, Aayakar Bhawan, Purva, Gangarampur, Dakshin 110, Shanti Pally, Em Dinajpur, Pin 733 124 By-Pass Kolkata-107 [Pan No.Aklp 6116 F] .. अपीलाथ" /Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent Shri Siddharth Agarwal, Advocate अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/By Appellant Shri A.K.Tiwari, Cit-Dr ""यथ" क" ओर से/By Respondent 05-02-2018 सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing 21-02-2018 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement आदेश /O R D E R Per Waseem Ahmed:- This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-21, Kolkata Dated 04.05.2016. Assessment Was Framed By Dcit, Central Circle-Xxvii, Kolkata U/S 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Act’) Vide His Order Dated 28.03.2014 For Assessment Year 2012-13. Penalty Levied By Assessing Officer U/S 271(1)(B) Of The Act Vide His Order Dated 03.09.2014. Shri Siddharth Agarwal, Ld. Advocate Appeared On Behalf Of Assessee & Shri A.K. Tiwari, Ld. Departmental Representative Appeared On Behalf Of Revenue. 2. Assessee Has Raised Following Grounds:- “1. For That On The Fats & In The Circumstances Of The Case, The Ld. Cit(A) Was Not Justified In Confirming The Penalty U/S 271(1)(B) Of The Act.

Section 132Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 271(1)(b)

M/S R. K. Mondal & Brothers, Burdwan vs. ITO, WD-1(1), Durgapur

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee (in ITA

ITA 1146/KOL/2016[2010-2011]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata25 Jan 2018AY 2010-2011

Bench: Shri A.T. Varkey, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.1145 & 1146/Kol/2016 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2010-11) M/S. R.K. Mondal & Vs. I.T.O, W-1(1), Durgapur Brothers Aayakar Bithi, City Centre, Vill + P.O: Kajora Gram, Durgapur, Durgapur – 713216. Dist. Burdwan, Pin-713338. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. : Aahfr 6294 C (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Appellant By :Shri U. Dasgupta, Advocate Respondent By :Shri G.H. Seema, Addl. Cit सुनवाईकीतारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 15/01/2018 घोषणाकीतारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 25/01/2018 आदेश / O R D E R Per Dr. Arjun Lal Saini, Am: These Captioned Appeals Filed By The Assessee, Pertaining To Assessment Year 2010-11, Are Directed Against Orders Passed By The Cit(A)- Durgapur, In Appeal No.146/147/Cit(A)/Dgp/2012-13, Dated 18.02.2016, Which In Turn Arises Out Of Orders Passed By The Assessing Officer U/S 271A & 271(1)(B) Of The I.T. Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’). 2. Since, These Two Captioned Appeals Relate To The Same Assessee, Same Assessment Year, Therefore, These Have Been Clubbed & Heard Together & A Consolidated Order Is Being Passed For The Sake Of Convenience & Brevity. 3. These Two Captioned Appeals Filed By The Assessee Against The Orders Of Cit(A) Confirming The Penalty In Respect Of Violation Of Section 271A & 271(1)(B) Of The I.T. Act, 1961. M/S. R.K. Mondal & Brothers

For Appellant: Shri U. Dasgupta, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri G.H. Seema, Addl. CIT
Section 143(3)Section 144Section 271(1)(b)Section 271ASection 44A

M/S R. K. Mondal & Brothers, Burdwan vs. ITO, WD-1(1), Durgapur

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee (in ITA

ITA 1145/KOL/2016[2010-2011]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata25 Jan 2018AY 2010-2011

Bench: Shri A.T. Varkey, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.1145 & 1146/Kol/2016 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2010-11) M/S. R.K. Mondal & Vs. I.T.O, W-1(1), Durgapur Brothers Aayakar Bithi, City Centre, Vill + P.O: Kajora Gram, Durgapur, Durgapur – 713216. Dist. Burdwan, Pin-713338. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. : Aahfr 6294 C (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Appellant By :Shri U. Dasgupta, Advocate Respondent By :Shri G.H. Seema, Addl. Cit सुनवाईकीतारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 15/01/2018 घोषणाकीतारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 25/01/2018 आदेश / O R D E R Per Dr. Arjun Lal Saini, Am: These Captioned Appeals Filed By The Assessee, Pertaining To Assessment Year 2010-11, Are Directed Against Orders Passed By The Cit(A)- Durgapur, In Appeal No.146/147/Cit(A)/Dgp/2012-13, Dated 18.02.2016, Which In Turn Arises Out Of Orders Passed By The Assessing Officer U/S 271A & 271(1)(B) Of The I.T. Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’). 2. Since, These Two Captioned Appeals Relate To The Same Assessee, Same Assessment Year, Therefore, These Have Been Clubbed & Heard Together & A Consolidated Order Is Being Passed For The Sake Of Convenience & Brevity. 3. These Two Captioned Appeals Filed By The Assessee Against The Orders Of Cit(A) Confirming The Penalty In Respect Of Violation Of Section 271A & 271(1)(B) Of The I.T. Act, 1961. M/S. R.K. Mondal & Brothers

For Appellant: Shri U. Dasgupta, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri G.H. Seema, Addl. CIT
Section 143(3)Section 144Section 271(1)(b)Section 271ASection 44A