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)

Shshank Varshney, Chandausi vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 2(5), Chandausi

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 4220/DEL/2024[2013-2014]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Jul 2025AY 2013-2014

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Manish Agarwalita No.4220/Del/2024 (Assessment Year 2013-14) Shshank Varshney, Income Tax Officer, Jyoti Seets, Brahm Bazar, Ward-2(5), Dist:-Sambhal, Vs. Chandausi. Uttar Pradesh-244412. Pan-Cmcpk9337C (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Ca Ramsha Department By Shri Dheeraj Kumar Jaiswal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 30/06/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 16/07/2025 O R D E R Per Manish Agarwal, Am: These Two Appeals Are Filed By The Assessee Against Two Separate Orders Of Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi (‘The Ld. Cit” In Short) Arising Out Of The Order Of Assessing Officer Passed U/S 147 R.W.S 144 & 271F Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (The Act) For Assessment Year 2013-14. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Has Filed The Appeal Delayed By 592 Days Before The Ld. Cit(A) Against The Order U/S 147 R.W.S. 144 Of The Act & Also Filed Appeal Delayed By 427 Days Against Penalty Order U/S 271F Of The Act. The Ld. Cit(A) Has Not Admitted Both The Appeals Of The Assessee On Account Of Delay By Not Condoning The Delay In Filing The Appeals. Shashank Varshne Vs. Ito 3. Against These Separate Orders Of Ld. Cit(A), The Assessee Is In Appeal Before Us By Stating That The Assessee Has Not Received The Notices Issued By The Ao As Well As Cit(A) As The Notices Were Stated To Have Being Sent On The Email Address” Chinto1411988@Gmail.Com Which Was Neither Belong To Assessee Nor His Earlier Counsel. As The Notices Issued From Time To Time Were Not Received By The Assessee, The Necessary Compliance Could Not Be Made Before The Lower Authorities. Assessee Also Filed An Affidavit In Support Of The Contentions Raised For The Delay Before The Ld. Cit(A) Which Reads As Under: Shashank Varshne Vs. Ito

Section 147Section 271F

Rajbhushan Omprakash Dixit, Mumbai vs. Jt. Commissioner (OSD), Central Circle

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

ITA 941/MUM/2025[2012-2013]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Jul 2025AY 2012-2013

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan () Assessment Year: 2012-13 Rajbhushan Omprakash Dixit, Jt. Commissioner (Osd), 201/12, Jawahar Nagar, Road No. Office Of Cit(A)-48, Vs. 13 Goregaon (West), Mumbai-400052. Mumbai-400062. Pan No. Aacpd 9215 C Appellant Respondent

For Respondent: Mr. Sankalp Sharma a/w
Section 143(3)Section 153(2)

Vikas Jain HUF, Delhi vs. ITO Ward-66(7), Delhi

Appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2609/DEL/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Jul 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Sh. Satbeer Singh Godaraita No. 2609/Del/2025 : Asstt. Year : 2016-17 Vikas Jain Huf, Vs Cit(A)/Income Tax Officer, 108-109, Parmesh Business Centre- Ward-66(7), 1, Plot No. 20, Community Centre, New Delhi-110002 Karkardooma, Delhi-110092 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaihv6645J Assessee By: Sh. Prince Mohan Sinha, Adv. Revenue By : Sh. Sudeep Dabas, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 10.07.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 10.07.2025 Order This Assessee’S Appeal For Assessment Year 2016-17, Arises Against The Cit(A)/Nfac, Delhi’S Din & Order No. Itba/Nfac/S/250/2024-25/1073132558(1) Dated 11.02.2025, In Proceedings U/S 271(1)(B) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short “The Act”).

For Appellant: Sh. Prince Mohan Sinha, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Sudeep Dabas, Sr. DR
Section 250(6)Section 271(1)(b)

Kajal Nimishbhai Sinojia, Rajkot vs. ITO WD 1(1)(1), RKT, Rajkot

Appeal is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 664/RJT/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot09 Jul 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini, Am. & Dinesh Mohan Sinha, Jm आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.664/Rjt/2024 "नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2015-16) (Hybrid Hearing) Kajal Nimishbhai Sinojia Vs. Income-Tax Officer, B-21 Shreeji Haridwar Society,Nr Ito Ward – 1(1)(1), Gokuldham, Aaykar Bhavan, Rajkot - 360004 Rajkot - 360001 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Bsups2455J (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By : Shri Chetan Agarwal, Ld. Ar Respondent By : Shri K. L. Solanki, Ld. Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 24 / 04 /2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 09 / 07/2025

For Appellant: Shri Chetan Agarwal, Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri K. L. Solanki, Ld. Sr. DR
Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 271Section 271(1)(b)Section 272A(1)(d)Section 273BSection 69C

Gurmelo Devi, Jagadhari vs. Income Tax Officer, Yumnanagar

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

ITA 1170/CHANDI/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh08 Jul 2025AY 2012-13

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

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Jain, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Vivek Vardhan, Addl. CIT, Sr. DR
Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 249(4)(b)Section 271(1)(c)Section 69

Kewal Kanwar Bhandari, Jodhpur vs. ITO, Ward-3(1), Jodhpur

Appeal is hereby dismissed

ITA 651/JODH/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur07 Jul 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Learned Cit(A). Vide Impugned Order, Learned Cit(A) Has Upheld The Penalty Order, By Observing In The Manner As Under:-

For Appellant: Smt. Raksha Birla, C.AFor Respondent: Sh. Karni Dan, Addl. CIT (Sr. DR)
Section 14Section 142(1)Section 147Section 271(1)(b)

Tours5 Com, Hyderabad vs. ITO., Ward-9(1), Hyderabad

ITA 632/HYD/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad07 Jul 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Us:

Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 271(1)(b)Section 271(1)(c)Section 69

Tours5 Com, Hyderabad vs. ITO., Ward-9(1), Hyderabad

ITA 630/HYD/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad07 Jul 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Us:

Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 271(1)(b)Section 271(1)(c)Section 69

Ashray Ventures Pvt. Ltd, Lucknow vs. Assessing Officer Central Circle-1, Lucknow

The appeal of the assessee stands allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 152/LKW/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow04 Jul 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastavaassessment Year: 2012-13 Ashray Ventures Pvt. Ltd. V. The Assessing Officer Gole Market Central Circle – 1 Mahanagar, Lucknow Lucknow Tan/Pan:Aakca3580E (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri Rakesh Garg, Advocate Respondent By: Shri Sanjeev Krishna Sharma, D.R. O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri Rakesh Garg, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Sanjeev Krishna Sharma, D.R
Section 132Section 142(1)Section 144Section 153ASection 68

S.B. Combine, Cuttack vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(1), Cuttack

In the result, appeals of the assessee stand allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 42/CTK/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack01 Jul 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: S/Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy(Kz) & Rajesh Kumar

For Appellant: Shri P.K.Mishra, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Prateek Ku. Mishra, Sr. DR
Section 147Section 148Section 149Section 271(1)(b)Section 271(1)(c)

S.B. Combine, Cuttack vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(1), Cuttack

In the result, appeals of the assessee stand allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 41/CTK/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack01 Jul 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: S/Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy(Kz) & Rajesh Kumar

For Appellant: Shri P.K.Mishra, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Prateek Ku. Mishra, Sr. DR
Section 147Section 148Section 149Section 271(1)(b)Section 271(1)(c)

Srinivas Rachiraju, Pune vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(1), Bhilai, Durg

The appeal is dismissed under mistaken belief about the facts

ITA 361/RPR/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur30 Jun 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No: 361/Rpr/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" Assessment Year: 2011-12)

For Appellant: Shri S. R. Rao, AdvFor Respondent: Dr. Priyanka Patel, Sr. DR
Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 154Section 2Section 250Section 271(1)(b)Section 4

Mr. Abhijit Pattnaik, Khorda vs. Income Tax Officer, Bhawanipatna Ward, Bhawanipatna

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

ITA 236/CTK/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack30 Jun 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy(Kz) Before Shri Rl Reddy(Kz)

For Appellant: Shri B.R.Panda, AdvFor Respondent: Shri S.C.Mohanty, Sr. DR
Section 147Section 271(1)(b)

Mr. Abhijit Pattnaik, Khorda vs. Income Tax Officer, Bhawanipatna Ward, Bhawanipatna

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

ITA 235/CTK/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack30 Jun 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy(Kz) Before Shri Rl Reddy(Kz)

For Appellant: Shri B.R.Panda, AdvFor Respondent: Shri S.C.Mohanty, Sr. DR
Section 147Section 271(1)(b)

Mr. Abhijit Pattnaik, Khorda vs. Income Tax Officer, Bhawani Patna Ward, Bhawanipatna

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

ITA 228/CTK/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack30 Jun 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy(Kz) Before Shri Rl Reddy(Kz)

For Appellant: Shri B.R.Panda, AdvFor Respondent: Shri S.C.Mohanty, Sr. DR
Section 147Section 271(1)(b)

Vipin Dwivedi, Lucknow vs. Assessing Officer, NFAC

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

ITA 241/LKW/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow30 Jun 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Nikhil Choudharyassessment Year: 2016-17 Vipin Dwivedi V. The Assessing Officer C-272, Nirala Nagar Nfac Lucknow Tan/Pan:Aiapd4894M (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: None Respondent By: Shri R. K. Agarwal, Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing: 10 06 2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 30 06 2025 O R D E R

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri R. K. Agarwal, CIT(DR)
Section 115BSection 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 234ASection 68Section 69

Chandrakumar Bhanwarlal Kothari, Mumbai vs. Assessing Officer, Mumbai

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

ITA 2265/MUM/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jun 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Smt. Renu Jauhriआयकर अपील सुं./Ita No. 2265/Mum/2025 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year :2016-17) Chandrakumar Bhanwarlal V/S. Ito, Ward 19(1)(1), Kothari बिाम Piramal Chamber, Ward 5/213, Shiv Prerna Shivaji 19(1)(1), Mumbai-400025 Nagar, Dr. A. B. Road, Worli, Mumbai, Maharashtra-400025 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Amnpk9283E Appellant/अपीलार्थी .. Respondent/प्रनिवादी निर्ााररती की ओर से /Assessee By: Shri Suryadev Yadev & Shri Karan Hariya राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By: Mr. Virabhadra S. Mahajan

For Appellant: Shri Suryadev Yadev & ShriFor Respondent: Mr. Virabhadra S. Mahajan
Section 250Section 271(1)(b)Section 271(1)(c)

Shakil Ahmed Hafizuddin, Mumbai vs. Assessing Officer Circle 42(3)(1), Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1250/MUM/2025[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jun 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Ms Padmavathy S, Am & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Satya Pal Kumar, Sr. DR
Section 144Section 147Section 234ASection 250Section 271FSection 69

Kissan Petro Oils Pvt Ltd, New Delhi vs. DCIT, Circle -13(1), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of appellant/assessee is allowed

ITA 5599/DEL/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Jun 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri S Rifaur Rahman & Shri Vimal Kumarassessment Year: 2015-16

For Appellant: Shri Bikash Kumar Thakur on behalf of Shri Dinesh Chandra, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Om Prakash, Sr. DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

Anumod Sharma, New Delhi vs. ACIT Central Circle-16, New Delhi

In the result, impugned order is set aside and appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 3107/DEL/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Jun 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri S Rifaur Rahmanआअसं.3107/ िद"ी /2023 (िन.व. 2016-17) Anumod Sharma, 1590, Madrasa Road, Kashmiri Gate, Delhi 110006 ...... अपीलाथ"/Appellant Pan: Amyps-5587-L बनाम Vs. Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, ..... "ितवादी/Respondent Central Circle-16, Delhi 110001 Assessee By : Shri Paritosh Jain, Advocate Department By: Shri Ashish Tripathi, Sr. Dr सुनवाई क" ितिथ/ Date Of Hearing : 16/04/2025 घोषणा क" ितिथ/ Date Of Pronouncement : : 16/04/2025 आदेश/Order Per Vikas Awasthy, Jm: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against An Ex-Parte Order Of Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-28, Delhi [In Short ‘The Cit(A)] Dated 22.12.2022, For The Assessment Year 2016-17. 2. The Appeal Is Time Barred By 250 Days. The Assessee Has Filed An Application Supported By An Affidavit Citing Reasons Causing Delay In Filing Of Appeal. After Perusal Of The Same, We Are Satisfied That Delay In Filing Of Appeal Is Not Intentional, The Delay Has Been Caused For The Reasons Stated In Petition Which Appears To Be Bonafide. Thus

For Appellant: Shri Paritosh Jain, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Ashish Tripathi, Sr. DR
Section 144Section 271(1)(b)Section 57