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)

Amiya Gopal Dutta, Kolkata vs. ACIT, Cir. 1(1), Jpg

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

ITA 147/KOL/2022[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata19 Jul 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Manish Borad, Hon’Ble & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Hon’Bleassessment Year: 2016-17 Amiya Gopal Dutta Acit, Circle-1(1), Jpg C/O. S.N. Ghosh & Associates, Advocates, 2, Vs. Gastin Place, 2Nd Floor, Suite No. 203, Off Hare Street, Kolkata – 700001. Pan: Adbpd 9197 P (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Appellant By : Shri Somnath Ghosh, Advocate Respondent By : Shri Biswanath Das, Acit Date Of Hearing : 12.07.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 20.07.2022 O R D E R Per Sonjoy Sarma, Jm: This Is An Appeal Preferred By The Assessee For A.Y. 2016-17 Is Directed Against The Order Of Ld. Cit(A), National Faceless Appeal Centre Dated 28.10.2021 U/S 271(1)(B) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961. The Assessee Has Taken The Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1. For That In The Facts & Circumstances Of The Instant Case, The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Nfac Acted Unlawfully In Not Appreciating That The Conditions Precedent For Framing The Order Imposing Penalty U/S. 271(1)(B) Of The Income Tax Act. 1961 On 27-06-2019 Were Not Complied With And/Or Fulfilled For The Ld. Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle 1(1). Jalpaiguri In The Present Context & His Purported Action On That Behalf Are Absolutely Is Ab Initio Void, Ultra Vires & Ex-Facie Null In Law. 2. For That The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Nfac Erred In Upholding The Validity Of The Impugned Order Imposing Penalty U/S. 271(1)(B) Of The Act Framed By The Ld. Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle 1(1), Jalpaiguri, Emanating Out Of The Order U/S. 144 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 Passed In Absolute Contravention Of The C.B.D.T. Instruction No. 1/2011 Dated 31-01-2011

For Appellant: Shri Somnath Ghosh, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Biswanath Das, ACIT
Section 142(2)Section 143(2)Section 144Section 271(1)(b)