Section 271A of the Income Tax Act

Income-tax Act, 2025: s.441

Section 271A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 corresponds to section 441 (Failure to keep, maintain or retain books of account, documents, etc) of the Income-tax Act, 2025.

Read section 441 of the 2025 Act

Correspondence checked against the ICAI tabular mapping of the two Acts and the BharatTax.co section commentary.

The decision most relied on for Section 271A is Surajmal Parsuram Todi v. CIT (222 ITR 691), cited in 114 of the 701 judgments on BharatTax that turn on this section.

Leading authorities on Section 271A

Surajmal Parsuram Todi v. CIT
222 ITR 691 · 1996 · High Court
114
citing judgments

A penalty under Section 271B for failure to get accounts audited cannot be levied if a penalty under Section 271A has already been imposed for non-maintenance of books of account.

CIT v. S.K. Gupta & Co.
322 ITR 86 · 2010 · High Court
110
citing judgments

If a penalty is levied under Section 271A for failure to maintain books of account, then a separate penalty under Section 271B for failure to get accounts audited under Section 44AB cannot also be levied.

CIT v. Khoday Eswarsa & Sons 1972 CTR (SC) 295
83 ITR 369 · 1972 · Supreme Court
94
citing judgments

Penalty under section 271(1)(c) cannot be levied solely on the basis of findings in the assessment proceedings. The Assessing Officer must discharge the burden of proving concealment or inaccurate particulars with additional material.

CIT v. Bisauli Tractors
299 ITR 219 · 2008 · High Court
81
citing judgments

If an assessee has not maintained books of accounts, the question of getting those accounts audited under Section 44AB does not arise, and therefore, a penalty under Section 271B for failure to get accounts audited cannot be levied. Non-maintenance of books is separately punishable under Section 271A.

Premier Breweries Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income Tax
372 ITR 180 · 2015 · Supreme Court
52
citing judgments

Whether an assessee has shown 'reasonable cause' under Section 273B, particularly in the context of penalties under Section 271D for violations of Section 269SS, is a question of law involving a legal inference from primary facts. Penalties under Section 271D are not leviable if reasonable cause is established, even for journal entries, provided transactions are genuine and bona fide.

Bharat Construction Co. v. ITO
153 CTR 414 · 1999 · High Court
49
citing judgments

When an assessee fails to maintain books of account, resulting in a confirmed penalty under section 271A, no additional penalty under section 271B can be levied for the failure to get accounts audited under section 44AB, as there are no accounts to audit.

Sheraton Apparels v. ACIT
256 ITR 20 · 2002 · High Court
42
citing judgments

Books of account include electronic records and are maintained to provide credible financial data for tax returns and to determine income. Penalty under section 271B for not getting accounts audited is applicable only when accounts are maintained, whereas section 271A applies if no accounts are maintained at all.

1) Bhagwan Sahai Sharma v. Dy. CIT
174 Taxmann.com 273 · 2025 · High Court
23
citing judgments

Reassessment proceedings initiated for AY 2015-16 after April 1, 2021, are barred by limitation and invalid, as per the amended provisions of the Finance Act, 2020.

Krish Kumar v. ITO
107 Taxmann.com 464 · 2019 · Supreme Court
21
citing judgments

An addition under section 69A is justified when cash deposits in a bank account significantly exceed reported sales and the assessee fails to provide a satisfactory explanation for the source of these deposits.

CIT v. Surinder Pal Anand, Surinder Pal Anand
242 CTR 61 · 2011 · High Court
20
citing judgments

When an assessee opts for the presumptive taxation scheme under Section 44AD of the Income Tax Act, offering income at a specified percentage of gross receipts, they are exempt from maintaining books of account and are not obligated to explain individual entries of cash deposits unless such entries lack nexus with the gross receipts.

Judgments on Section 271A

Biswajit Karmakar, Cuttack vs. ITO Ward-2(3), Cuttack

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee stand dismissed

ITA 221/CTK/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack20 Sept 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Before Shri George Mathan, Judicialita Nos.220 & 221/Ctk/20 /Ctk/2023 Assessment Year : 2011-2012 2012 Biswajit Karamkar, Karamkar, Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward Income Tax Officer, Ward- Binod Binod Bihari Bihari Market, Market, 2(3), Cuttack 2(3), Cuttack Balubazar, Cuttack Balubazar, Cuttack Pan/Gir No. Pan/Gir No.Agopk 4528 P (Appellant (Appellant) .. ( Respondent Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Subit Sahu, Adv Subit Sahu, Adv Revenue By : Shri S.C.Mohanty : Shri S.C.Mohanty, Sr Dr Date Of Hearing : 20/09 9/2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 20/0 /09/2023 O R D E R These Are Appeals Filed By The Assessee Against The Separate Orders These Are Appeals Filed By The Assessee Against The Separate Orders These Are Appeals Filed By The Assessee Against The Separate Orders Of The Ld Cit(A) Of The Ld Cit(A)-2, Bhubaneswar Dated 21.3.2023, In The Matter Of Penalty 2, Bhubaneswar Dated 21.3.2023, In The Matter Of Penalty Under Section 271A & 271B Of The I.T.Act Under Section 271A & 271B Of The I.T.Act For The Assessment Year 2011 For The Assessment Year 2011- 12. 2. Shri Subit Sahu, Adv Appeared For The Assessee & Shri Shri Subit Sahu, Adv Appeared For The Assessee & Shri Shri Subit Sahu, Adv Appeared For The Assessee & Shri S.C.Mohanty, Ld Sr Dr Appeared For The Revenue. S.C.Mohanty, Ld Sr Dr Appeared For The Revenue.

For Appellant: Shri Subit Sahu, AdvFor Respondent: Shri S.C.Mohanty
Section 271A

Biswajit Karmakar, Cuttack vs. ITO Ward-2(3), Cuttack

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee stand dismissed

ITA 220/CTK/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack20 Sept 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Before Shri George Mathan, Judicialita Nos.220 & 221/Ctk/20 /Ctk/2023 Assessment Year : 2011-2012 2012 Biswajit Karamkar, Karamkar, Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward Income Tax Officer, Ward- Binod Binod Bihari Bihari Market, Market, 2(3), Cuttack 2(3), Cuttack Balubazar, Cuttack Balubazar, Cuttack Pan/Gir No. Pan/Gir No.Agopk 4528 P (Appellant (Appellant) .. ( Respondent Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Subit Sahu, Adv Subit Sahu, Adv Revenue By : Shri S.C.Mohanty : Shri S.C.Mohanty, Sr Dr Date Of Hearing : 20/09 9/2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 20/0 /09/2023 O R D E R These Are Appeals Filed By The Assessee Against The Separate Orders These Are Appeals Filed By The Assessee Against The Separate Orders These Are Appeals Filed By The Assessee Against The Separate Orders Of The Ld Cit(A) Of The Ld Cit(A)-2, Bhubaneswar Dated 21.3.2023, In The Matter Of Penalty 2, Bhubaneswar Dated 21.3.2023, In The Matter Of Penalty Under Section 271A & 271B Of The I.T.Act Under Section 271A & 271B Of The I.T.Act For The Assessment Year 2011 For The Assessment Year 2011- 12. 2. Shri Subit Sahu, Adv Appeared For The Assessee & Shri Shri Subit Sahu, Adv Appeared For The Assessee & Shri Shri Subit Sahu, Adv Appeared For The Assessee & Shri S.C.Mohanty, Ld Sr Dr Appeared For The Revenue. S.C.Mohanty, Ld Sr Dr Appeared For The Revenue.

For Appellant: Shri Subit Sahu, AdvFor Respondent: Shri S.C.Mohanty
Section 271A

Smt. Laxmi Devi Chandwani, Bilaspur vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(1), Bilaspur

In the result, we are inclined to set aside the order of the Ld

ITA 99/RPR/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur15 Sept 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.99/Rpr/2023 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year: 2014-15 Smt. Laxmi Devi Chandwani V Income Tax Officer Agrasen Chowk S Ward-1(1), Bilaspur Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh-495 001. Chhattisgarh-495 001 Pan: Agmpc 8368H (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) .. िनधा"रती क" ओर से /Assessee By : Shri S.R. Rao, Adv. राज"व क" ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Satya Prakash Sharma, Sr. Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date Of Hearing : 21/08/2023 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 15/09/2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Arun Khodpia, Am : The Captioned Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi, Dated 20.02.2023 U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 For Ay 2014-15, Arises From The Order Of Ld. Assessing Officer U/S 271B Of Income Tax Act, 1961 Dated 24.09.2022. The Grounds Of The Appeal Raised By The Assessee Are As Under: “1. That The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) Is Arbitrary, Bad In Law & Facts. 2. That The Ld. Cit(Appeals) Has Erred In Law & Facts In Confirming The Levy Of Penalty U/S 271B Imposed By Learned Assessing Officer.”

For Appellant: Shri S.R. Rao, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Satya Prakash Sharma, Sr. DR
Section 147Section 250Section 271Section 271ASection 271BSection 44A