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

Poosabban Thangaraju, Erode vs. ITO, Ward -1(4), Erode

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 148/CHNY/2021[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai06 May 2022AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.147 & 148/Chny/2021 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2007-08 & 2008-09 Shri Poosabban Thangaraju, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, 24/16A, Parinagar, Collectorate Post, Ward 1(4), Palayapalayam, Erode 638 011. Erode. [Pan:Afypt1378K] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri S. Sridhar, Advocate, Erode ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Ar V Sreenivasan, Addl. Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 27.04.2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 06.05.2022 आदेश /O R D E R Per V. Durga Rao: Both The Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against Different Orders Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre [Nfac], New Delhi Dated 26.03.2021 & Dated 01.04.2021 Relevant To The Assessment Years 2007-08 & 2008-09. 2. At The Outset, The Ld. Counsel For The Assessee Has Submitted That The Ld. Cit(A) [Nfac] Has Dismissed Both The Appeals Of The Assessee On The Ground That The Assessee Has Already Opted For Vsvs Scheme & Form No. 5 Dated 25.03.2020 Has Already Been Issued To The Assessee. The Ld.

For Appellant: Shri S. Sridhar, Advocate, ErodeFor Respondent: Shri AR V Sreenivasan, Addl. CIT
Section 143(3)Section 271ASection 5(2)

Poosabban Thangaraju, Erode vs. ITO Ward-1(4), Erode

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 147/CHNY/2021[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai06 May 2022AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.147 & 148/Chny/2021 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2007-08 & 2008-09 Shri Poosabban Thangaraju, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, 24/16A, Parinagar, Collectorate Post, Ward 1(4), Palayapalayam, Erode 638 011. Erode. [Pan:Afypt1378K] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri S. Sridhar, Advocate, Erode ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Ar V Sreenivasan, Addl. Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 27.04.2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 06.05.2022 आदेश /O R D E R Per V. Durga Rao: Both The Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against Different Orders Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre [Nfac], New Delhi Dated 26.03.2021 & Dated 01.04.2021 Relevant To The Assessment Years 2007-08 & 2008-09. 2. At The Outset, The Ld. Counsel For The Assessee Has Submitted That The Ld. Cit(A) [Nfac] Has Dismissed Both The Appeals Of The Assessee On The Ground That The Assessee Has Already Opted For Vsvs Scheme & Form No. 5 Dated 25.03.2020 Has Already Been Issued To The Assessee. The Ld.

For Appellant: Shri S. Sridhar, Advocate, ErodeFor Respondent: Shri AR V Sreenivasan, Addl. CIT
Section 143(3)Section 271ASection 5(2)

Yogesh Parashram Pangarkar, Pune vs. Income-Tax Officer, Ward - 11(2), Pune

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 1162/PUN/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Pune15 Mar 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri S.S.Viswanethra Ravi, Hon’Ble Jm & Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Hon’Ble Am आयकरअपीलसं. / Ita No.1162/Pun/2018 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year : 2013-14 Yogesh Parashram Pangarkar, The Income Tax Officer, Ward- S.No.259, Kalwadlohgaon Road, Vs 11(2), Pune. Kalwd, Pune – 411032. Pan: Ajepp 0509 Q Appellant/ Assessee Respondent /Revenue Assessee By Shri Bharat Shah – Ar Revenue By Shri S.P.Walimbe– Dr Date Of Hearing 16/02/2022 Date Of Pronouncement 15/03/2022 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Directed Against The Order Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals)-1, Pune, Appeal Number.Pn/Cit(A)1/Dcit,Cir.1(2)/Pn/508/16-17 Dated 12.01.2018 For The Assessment Year 2013-14.The Assessee Raised Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1) The Authorities Below Erred In Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law In Levying Penalty Of Rs.25000/- U/S 271A When The Assessee Has Maintained Proper Books Of Accounts. Just & Proper Relief Be Granted To The Assessee In This Respect. 2) The Appellant Prays To Be Allowed To Add, Amend, Modify, Rectify, Delete, Raise Any Ground Of Appeal Before Or At The Time Of Hearing.” 2. Brief Facts Of The Case, As Emanating From The Order Of The Ld.Cit(A), Are That The Assessee Is A Doctor By A Profession. The Professional Receipts Of The Assessee During The Year Was Of Rs.15,39,837/-. As Per Provisions Of Section 44Aa Of The Act, The Appellant Was Required To Maintain Books Of Accounts As Mentioned In The Income Tax Rules 6F. During The Assessment

Section 271ASection 44A

Anuraj Singh Sabarwal, Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward 31(2), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 390/KOL/2021[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata15 Dec 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Rajesh Kumari.T.A. No.390/Kol/2021 Assessment Year: 2013-14 Anuraj Singh Sabarwal..........................................…………………….……Appellant P.4A, C.I.T. Road, Kolkata-700019. [Pan:Avcps7765H] Vs. Ito, Ward-31(2), Kolkata…………..…...............……........……...…..…..Respondent Appearances By: Shri K. M. Roy, Advocate, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Smt. Ranu Biswas, Addl. Cit-Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : December 15, 2021 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : December 15, 2021 Hearing Through Video Conferencing Order Per Sanjay Garg: The Present Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 13.06.2021 Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Cit’] Confirming Penalty Levied By The Assessing Officer U/S 271A As Well As 271B Of The Income Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’). The Assessee In This Appeal Has Taken The Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1. That Having Initiated Penalty U/S 271A For Non-Maintenance Of Books, Simultaneous Invocation Of Section 271B Is Bad In Law. 2. That Once Having Been Established That No Book Of Accounts Are Maintained, Conduct Of Audit Is An Impossibility & Hence Initiation Of Penalty Is Unsustainable & Hence Liable To Be Quashed. 3. That The Appellant Reserves The Right To Raise Additional Grounds.” Though The Registry Has Pointed Out That The Appeal Is Time Barred, However, In 2. View Of The Decision Of The Hon’Ble Supreme Court In The Case Of Miscellaneous Application No.665 Of 2021 In Smw(C) No.3 Of 2020, The Period Of Filing Appeal During The Covid-19 Pandemic Is To Be Excluded For The Purpose Of Counting The Limitation Period. In View Of This, This Appeal Is Treated As Filed Within The Limitation Period.

Section 147Section 2Section 271ASection 271BSection 44A