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)

Gunjan Rungta, Kushinagar vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward - 2(4), Kushinagar

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

ITA 50/VNS/2022[2012-2013]Status: DisposedITAT Varanasi10 Oct 2025AY 2012-2013

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastavaassessment Year: 2012-13 Gunjan Rungta V. The Income Tax Officer Onkar Vatika Colony Ward 2(4) Padrauna, Kushinagar (U.P) Kushinagar Tan/Pan:Agmpr5334G (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri Ashish Bansal, Advocate Respondent By: Smt Amandeep Kaur, D.R. O R D E R This Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against Order Dated 15.06.2022, Passed By The National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (Nfac) For Assessment Year 2012-13. 2.0 The Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Had Not Filed The Return Of Income For The Year Under Consideration. The Income Tax Department Was In Possession Of Information That During The Year Under Consideration The Assessee Had Purchased An Immovable Property For A Consideration Of Rs.30,50,000/-. To Examine This Transaction, The Case Of The Assessee Was Reopened Under Section 147 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Called “The Act’) After Issuing Notice Under Section 148 Of The Act. However, There Was No Response From The Side Of The Assessee To The Notice Under Section 148 Of The Act. Thereafter, The

For Appellant: Shri Ashish Bansal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt Amandeep Kaur, D.R
Section 147Section 148Section 69

Parikh Amitkumar Mahendrabhai, Vadodara vs. The Dy.CIT, Circle-1(1)(1), Vadodara

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

ITA 1199/AHD/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad09 Oct 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Makarand V.Mahadeokarasstt.Year : 2015-16 Parikh Amitkumar Mahendrabhai The Dcit 6, Alaknanda Society Circle 1(1)(1) Sama, Vadodara 390 008. Vadodara. Pan : Acppp 2527 G (Applicant) (Responent) Assessee By : Shri Mehul K. Pate, Advocate Revenue By : Shri Yogesh Mishra, Sr.Dr सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 07/10/2025 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 09/10/2025 आदेश/O R D E R आदेश आदेश आदेश

For Appellant: Shri Mehul K. Pate, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Yogesh Mishra, Sr.DR
Section 129Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 2Section 271(1)(b)Section 54

Abdul Ibrahim Patel, Bharuch vs. ITO Ward 1(4) Bharuch (Currently, ITO Ward 1(1) Bharuch), Bharuch

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

ITA 630/SRT/2025[2017-18]Status: HeardITAT Surat08 Oct 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain () & Shri Om Prakash Kant () Assessment Year: 2017-2018 Abdul Ibrahim Patel, Ito Ward 1(4) Bharuch Kadri Travel, Near Water Tank, At (Currently, Ito Ward 1(1) & Post Zanor, Vs. Bharuch), Bharuch-392210. Income Tax Office, Station Road, Bharuch-392001. Pan No. Afspp 6042 A Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Krutarth Desai, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Namita Patel, Sr. DR
Section 144Section 234ASection 271(1)(b)Section 69A

Dai Chand, Kaithal vs. Income Tax Officer, Kaithal

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

ITA 936/CHANDI/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh08 Oct 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: SHRI. LALIET KUMAR (Judicial Member), SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Pulkit Saini, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Vivek Vardhan, Addl. CIT, Sr. DR
Section 144Section 148Section 234ASection 271(1)(c)Section 69Section 69A

Sesham Ramanaiah, Prakasam vs. ITO., Ward-1, Ongole

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

ITA 1062/HYD/2025[2016-17]Status: FixedITAT Hyderabad08 Oct 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

For Appellant: Ms. Swathi Sheela, C.AFor Respondent: Dr. Sachin Kumar, SR-DR
Section 139Section 147Section 148Section 69Section 69A

Income-Tax Officer, Ward-1, Raichur vs. Maralbid Padmavathi, Raichur

In the result, appeal filed by theRevenue is dismissed

ITA 1006/BANG/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore07 Oct 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri.Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri. Soundararajan Kassessment Year : 2016-17 Ito, Vs. Maralbid Padmavathi, Ward – 1, 4-4-145, Zahirabad Raichur, Raichur. Raichur – 584 101, Karnataka. Pan :Anhpp 8615 N Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri. Narendra Sharma, Advocate Revenue By : Shri. Shankar Ganesh D, Addl. Cit(Dr)(Itat), Bangalore. Date Of Hearing : 12.08.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 07.10.2025

For Appellant: Shri. Narendra Sharma, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. Shankar Ganesh D, Addl. CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bangalore
Section 139Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 271(1)(b)

Jainam Group Chhindwara, Chhindwara vs. Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC) Delhi

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

ITA 83/JAB/2024[2013-2014]Status: DisposedITAT Jabalpur30 Sept 2025AY 2013-2014

Bench: Sh. Kul Bharat & Sh. Nikhil Choudhary

For Appellant: Sh. Rahul Bardia, C.AFor Respondent: Sh. Alok Bhura, Sr. DR
Section 147Section 250Section 68

Jitendrabhai Bhagvanbhai Dalvadi, Surendranagar vs. ITO Ward 2, Morbi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 466/RJT/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot30 Sept 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: DR. ARJUN LAL SAINI (Accountant Member), SHRI DINESH MOHAN SINHA (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Kalpesh Doshi, ARFor Respondent: Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Sr-DR
Section 124Section 127Section 143(3)Section 147Section 234ASection 250Section 254Section 271(1)(c)Section 68

Late Ashvinbhai Umedbhai Patel (Deceased) by Legal Heir Smit Ashvinbhai Patel, Kheda vs. The ITO, Ward-1, Nadiad

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

ITA 1106/AHD/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad30 Sept 2025AY 2011-12
Section 271(1)Section 271CSection 69Section 69A

Late Ashvinbhai Umedbhai Patel (Deceased) by Legal Heir Smit Ashvinbhai Patel, Kheda vs. The ITO, Ward-1, Nadiad

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

ITA 1105/AHD/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad30 Sept 2025AY 2011-12
Section 271(1)Section 271CSection 69Section 69A

Babu Singh, Gautam Buddha Nagar vs. Assessment Unit, Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3440/DEL/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Sept 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Sudhir Kumar & Shri Manish Agarwalbabu Singh, Assessment Unit, 138, Village-Mirzapur, Knp-W-(100) (6), P.O.-Dankaur, Vs. Income Tax Department Distt. Gautam Buddha Nagar, Uttar Pradesh 203201. Pan-Eakps8485M (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Udham Singh, Adv. Department By Shri Shyam Manohar Singh, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 25/09/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 30/09/2025 O R D E R Per Manish Agarwal, Am: This Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [Cit(A), In Short] Dated 10.03.2025 In Appeal No. Nfac/2014-15/10297028 Arising Out Of Order Passed U/S 271(1)(B) Of The Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred As ‘The Act’) Dated 20.09.2023 For Assessment Year 2015-16. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessment Of The Assessee Was Completed Vide Order Dated 21.03.2023 Passed U/S 147/144 R.W.S 144B Of The Act Wherein The Penalty Proceedings U/S 271(1)(B) Were Initiated For Non-Compliance Of The Statutory Notices. Thereafter, The Ao Proceeded With Pending Penalty Proceedings U/S Babu Singh Vs. Assessment Unit 271(1)(B) & In Terms Of Order Dated 20.09.2023 Levied Penalty Of Rs.20,000/- For Non-Compliance Of The Statutory Notices Issued U/S 142(1) Of The Act On 17.01.2023 & 01.02.2023. 3. Against Such Order, An Appeal Was Preferred By The Assessee Before The Ld. Cit(A) Who Vide Impugned Order Dated 10.03.2023 Has Dismissed The Appeal Of The Assessee Therefore, The Assessee Is In Appeal Before The Tribunal.

Section 142(1)Section 147Section 250Section 271(1)(b)

Dinesh Kumar Rajendra Singh, Malad East Mumbai vs. Assessing Officer (AO), Kautilya Bhavan, Mumbai

ITA 4689/MUM/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Sept 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Umashankar Prasad &
Section 143(3)Section 194CSection 194ISection 271

Hirabai & Hormusji Jiwanivakil Model School Trust, Dahanu Road vs. The Income Tax Officer, Exemption Ward, Thane

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

ITA 4137/MUM/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Sept 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Smt. Renu Jauhriआयकर अपील सुं./Ita No.4137/Mum/2025 (धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2016-2017) Hirabai & Hormusji V/S. Income Tax Officer, Jiwanivakil Model बिाम Exemption Ward, Thane School Trust Income Tax Officer, Near Chandra Takies, Exemption Ward, Thane Masoli, Dahanu Road, 400604 Palghar 401602 स्थायी लेखा सुं./जीआइआर सुं./Pan/Gir No: Aaath1536J Appellant/अपीलाथी .. Respondent/प्रधिवादी धििााररिी की ओर से /Assessee By: Shri Piyush Bafna, Ca (Virtually Appear) राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By: Shri Ritesh Misra, Cit Dr स िवाई की िारीख / Date Of Hearing 25.08.2025 घोर्णा की िारीख/Date Of Pronouncement 24.09.2025 आदेश / O R D E R Per Renu Jauhri [A.M.] :- This Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi [Cit(A)] Dated 23.04.2025 Passed U/S. 250 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 [Hereinafter Referred To As “Act”] For Assessment Year 2016-2017. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds In This Appeal. “1. It Is Submitted That The Order Imposing Penalty Of Rs. 10,000/-Dated 28.06.2019 [Itba/Pnl/7271(1)(B)/2019-20/1016563977(1)] Is Bad In Law & Is Required To Be Held As Illegal As The Penalty Order Is Under The Signature Of Mr. Sanjay Kumar, Ito Exemption Ward, Thane. However, The Demand Notice Has Been Issued On 27.06.2019 By Mr. Prashant Singh, Ito Exemption Ward, Thane, I.E. One Day Prior To The Issue

For Appellant: Shri Piyush Bafna, CA (VirtuallyFor Respondent: Shri Ritesh Misra, CIT DR
Section 143(2)Section 144Section 156Section 250Section 271(1)(b)

Nand Kumar Choudhary, Bargarh vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward Bargarh, Bandu Vikira Chowk

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 420/CTK/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack22 Sept 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rajesh Kumarआयकर अपील सं/Ita No.420/Ctk/2025 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2016-2017) Nand Kumar Choudhury Vs Ito, Ward- Bargarh, Bargarh Rengalapali Camp, Attabira, Baragarh, 768027 Pan No. : Aaqpc 1181 Q (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) .. नििााररती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri Sunil Surana, Advocate राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Vijay Singh, Sr. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 22/09/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 22/09/2025 आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench : This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Ld.Cit(A), National Faceless Appeal Centre(Nfac), Delhi Order Dated 06/05/2025 Passed In Appeal No. Nfac/2015-16/10166862 For The Assessment Year 2016-2017. 2. It Was Submitted By The Ld. Ar That The Assessment Order In The Case Of Assessee Has Been Passed By The Nfac On 28.03.2022. It Was The Submission That The Notification By Which The National Faceless Assessment Centre Was Made Effective Is Dated 29.03.2022. It Was The Submission That Consequently The Assessment Order Passed On 28.03.2022 Is Liable To Be Quashed. Ld. Ar Placed Reliance On The Decision Of The Coordinate Bench Of The Tribunal In The Case Of Md. Mahimud Sk In Ita Nos.2230&2229/Kol/2024 Pronounced On 04.03.2025, Wherein In Para 10 To 12, The Coordinate Bench Of The Tribunal Has Held As Under :-

For Appellant: Shri Sunil Surana, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Vijay Singh, Sr. DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 151A

Sukhminder Singh, Chandigarh vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 2(1), Chandigarh

In the result, the order of the Ld

ITA 278/CHANDI/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh22 Sept 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: SHRI. LALIET KUMAR (Judicial Member), SHRI. MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri T.N. Singhla, C.AFor Respondent: Dr. Ranjit Kaur, Addl. CIT, Sr. DR (Virtual)
Section 143Section 143(3)Section 148Section 234ASection 250Section 271(1)(b)Section 271(1)(c)Section 271A

Rajesh Singh, Rewa vs. ITO Ward-1 Rewa, Rewa

In the result, appeal in ITA No

ITA 129/JAB/2023[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Jabalpur19 Sept 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Sh. Kul Bharat & Sh. Nikhil Choudharyita Nos.128 & 129/Jab/2023 A.Y. 2010-11 Rajesh Singh, Vs. Income Tax Officer, M/S Pharma Deal Agency, Ward No.8, Ward-1, Rewa, M.P. Mauganj, Distt. Rewa, M.P. Pan:Atrps5702K (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Sh. Devendra Singh, C.AFor Respondent: Sh. N.M. Prasad, Sr. DR
Section 143(2)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 271(1)(b)Section 69A

Rajesh Singh, Rewa vs. ITO Ward -1, Rewa

In the result, appeal in ITA No

ITA 128/JAB/2023[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Jabalpur19 Sept 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Sh. Kul Bharat & Sh. Nikhil Choudharyita Nos.128 & 129/Jab/2023 A.Y. 2010-11 Rajesh Singh, Vs. Income Tax Officer, M/S Pharma Deal Agency, Ward No.8, Ward-1, Rewa, M.P. Mauganj, Distt. Rewa, M.P. Pan:Atrps5702K (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Sh. Devendra Singh, C.AFor Respondent: Sh. N.M. Prasad, Sr. DR
Section 143(2)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 271(1)(b)Section 69A

Varahala Sobha Rani, Hyderabad vs. ITO., Ward-1, Sangareddy

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

ITA 789/HYD/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad19 Sept 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Dr. Sachin Kumar, SR-DR
Section 142(1)Section 147Section 271(1)(b)

Triyugi Narayan Dwiwedi, Rewa vs. Income Tax Officer - Ward - 1, Rewa

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 137/JAB/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Jabalpur18 Sept 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Kul Bharatassessment Year: 2016-17 Triyugi Narayan Dwivedi V. Income Tax Officer Ward No.03, Bramhan Tola Ward-1 Dhari Khadda, Semariya Distt- Kothi Compound Becides Rewa-486001. Family Court, Rewa- 486001. Pan: Bhbpd4469B (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Ms. Apoorva Garg, Ca Shri Kng Pillai, Advocate Respondent By: Shri N.M. Prasad, Sr.Dr-1 Date Of Hearing: 17 09 2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 18 09 2025 O R D E R

For Appellant: Ms. Apoorva Garg, CAFor Respondent: Shri N.M. Prasad, Sr.DR-1
Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 250Section 251Section 271(1)(b)Section 56Section 69A

M/S. Rsv Skin & Laser Centre, Chennai vs. ACIT, Central Cricle 1(4), Chennai

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee(s) are allowed

ITA 1726/CHNY/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai18 Sept 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Amitabh Shukla

For Appellant: Mr.B. Ramakrishnan, FCA &For Respondent: Ms. Gauthami Manivasagam
Section 132Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 153ASection 153CSection 271(1)(b)Section 272A(1)(d)