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)

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

In the result, the appeals of the assessee (in ITA Nos

ITA 879/KOL/2016[2011-2012]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata06 Dec 2017AY 2011-2012

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan, Jm & Dr. A.L. Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.873 To 879/Kol/2016 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2006-07 To 2012-13) Shri Bijan Kumar Paul Vs. Dcit, Cc-Xxvii, Kolkata Thana Road, Gangarampur, Aayakar Bhawan Purva, 110, Dakshin Dinajpur – 733 124. Shanti Palli, E.M. By-Pass, Kolkata – 700 107. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Afbpp 1901 K (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Appellant By :Shri Avijit Dey, Advocate Respondent By :Shri A.K. Tiwari, Cit सुनवाई क" तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 30/11/2017 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 06/12/2017 आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench: These Captioned Seven Appeals Filed By The Assessee, Pertaining To Assessment Years 2006-07 To 2012-13, Are Directed Against The Order Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) – 21, Kolkata In Appeal No.411/Dcit,Cc-4(3),Kol/Cit(A)-21/Kol/14-15 Dated 16.02.2016, Confirming The Penalty Levied By The Ao Of Rs.20,000/- U/S 271(1)(B) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961. 2. These Seven Appeals Relate To The Same Assessee, Different Assessment Years, Identical Issues Are Involved, Therefore, These Have Clubbed & Heard Together & A Consolidated Order Is Being Passed For The Sake Of Convenience & Brevity. 3. Appeal Of The Assessee In Ita No.873/Kol/2016 Assessment Year 2006-07 Is Taken As A Lead Case. 4. The Grounds Of Appeal Raised By The Assessee (In Lead Case In Ita No.873/Kol/2016) Are As Under: “1. For That On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case, The Ld. Cit(A) Was Not Justified In Confirming The Penalty To The Tune Of Rs.20,000/- Imposed By The Ao U/S 271(1)(B) Of The Act. 2. For That The Ld. Cit(A) Ought To Have Deleted The Entire Penalty Of Rs.20,000/- Imposed U/S 271(1)(B) Since The Assessee Was Prevented By Reasonable Cause For Non-Appearance During The Course Of Assessment Proceedings.

For Appellant: Shri Avijit Dey, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri A.K. Tiwari, CIT
Section 132(1)Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 271(1)(b)

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

In the result, the appeals of the assessee (in ITA Nos

ITA 878/KOL/2016[2011-2012]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata06 Dec 2017AY 2011-2012

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan, Jm & Dr. A.L. Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.873 To 879/Kol/2016 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2006-07 To 2012-13) Shri Bijan Kumar Paul Vs. Dcit, Cc-Xxvii, Kolkata Thana Road, Gangarampur, Aayakar Bhawan Purva, 110, Dakshin Dinajpur – 733 124. Shanti Palli, E.M. By-Pass, Kolkata – 700 107. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Afbpp 1901 K (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Appellant By :Shri Avijit Dey, Advocate Respondent By :Shri A.K. Tiwari, Cit सुनवाई क" तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 30/11/2017 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 06/12/2017 आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench: These Captioned Seven Appeals Filed By The Assessee, Pertaining To Assessment Years 2006-07 To 2012-13, Are Directed Against The Order Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) – 21, Kolkata In Appeal No.411/Dcit,Cc-4(3),Kol/Cit(A)-21/Kol/14-15 Dated 16.02.2016, Confirming The Penalty Levied By The Ao Of Rs.20,000/- U/S 271(1)(B) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961. 2. These Seven Appeals Relate To The Same Assessee, Different Assessment Years, Identical Issues Are Involved, Therefore, These Have Clubbed & Heard Together & A Consolidated Order Is Being Passed For The Sake Of Convenience & Brevity. 3. Appeal Of The Assessee In Ita No.873/Kol/2016 Assessment Year 2006-07 Is Taken As A Lead Case. 4. The Grounds Of Appeal Raised By The Assessee (In Lead Case In Ita No.873/Kol/2016) Are As Under: “1. For That On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case, The Ld. Cit(A) Was Not Justified In Confirming The Penalty To The Tune Of Rs.20,000/- Imposed By The Ao U/S 271(1)(B) Of The Act. 2. For That The Ld. Cit(A) Ought To Have Deleted The Entire Penalty Of Rs.20,000/- Imposed U/S 271(1)(B) Since The Assessee Was Prevented By Reasonable Cause For Non-Appearance During The Course Of Assessment Proceedings.

For Appellant: Shri Avijit Dey, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri A.K. Tiwari, CIT
Section 132(1)Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 271(1)(b)

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

In the result, the appeals of the assessee (in ITA Nos

ITA 877/KOL/2016[2010-2011]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata06 Dec 2017AY 2010-2011

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan, Jm & Dr. A.L. Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.873 To 879/Kol/2016 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2006-07 To 2012-13) Shri Bijan Kumar Paul Vs. Dcit, Cc-Xxvii, Kolkata Thana Road, Gangarampur, Aayakar Bhawan Purva, 110, Dakshin Dinajpur – 733 124. Shanti Palli, E.M. By-Pass, Kolkata – 700 107. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Afbpp 1901 K (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Appellant By :Shri Avijit Dey, Advocate Respondent By :Shri A.K. Tiwari, Cit सुनवाई क" तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 30/11/2017 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 06/12/2017 आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench: These Captioned Seven Appeals Filed By The Assessee, Pertaining To Assessment Years 2006-07 To 2012-13, Are Directed Against The Order Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) – 21, Kolkata In Appeal No.411/Dcit,Cc-4(3),Kol/Cit(A)-21/Kol/14-15 Dated 16.02.2016, Confirming The Penalty Levied By The Ao Of Rs.20,000/- U/S 271(1)(B) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961. 2. These Seven Appeals Relate To The Same Assessee, Different Assessment Years, Identical Issues Are Involved, Therefore, These Have Clubbed & Heard Together & A Consolidated Order Is Being Passed For The Sake Of Convenience & Brevity. 3. Appeal Of The Assessee In Ita No.873/Kol/2016 Assessment Year 2006-07 Is Taken As A Lead Case. 4. The Grounds Of Appeal Raised By The Assessee (In Lead Case In Ita No.873/Kol/2016) Are As Under: “1. For That On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case, The Ld. Cit(A) Was Not Justified In Confirming The Penalty To The Tune Of Rs.20,000/- Imposed By The Ao U/S 271(1)(B) Of The Act. 2. For That The Ld. Cit(A) Ought To Have Deleted The Entire Penalty Of Rs.20,000/- Imposed U/S 271(1)(B) Since The Assessee Was Prevented By Reasonable Cause For Non-Appearance During The Course Of Assessment Proceedings.

For Appellant: Shri Avijit Dey, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri A.K. Tiwari, CIT
Section 132(1)Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 271(1)(b)