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

M/S. Agarwal Transport Corporation, Cuttack vs. ITO, Ward-2(1), Cuttack

In the result, both appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 407/CTK/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack16 Dec 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri C.M. Garg, Jm & Shri L.P. Sahu, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं./Ita Nos.406&407/Ctk/2019 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Years :2012-2013 & 2013-2014) M/S Agarwal Transport Corp. Vs. Ito, Ward-2(1),Cuttack At: Bagha Mangala Lane, Mangalabag, Po: Buxi Bazar,Cuttack-753001 स्थायी लेखा सं./Pan No. : Aaffa 2795 K (अऩीलाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) : ननधाारिती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri S.N.Sahu & Shri Somnath Sahu, Advocates िाजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Subhendu Dutta, Dr सुनवाई की तािीख / Date Of Hearing : 28/11/2019 घोषणा की तािीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 16/12/2019 आदेश / O R D E R Per L.P.Sahu, Am: These Two Appeals Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Cit(A), Cuttack, Dated 07.09.2018 & 31.08.2018 For The Assessment Years 2012-2013 & 2013-2014. 2. The Sole Issue Involved In Both The Appeals Of The Assessee Is With Regard To Confirming The Penalty Levied U/S.271A Of The Act. 3. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Derives Income From Execution Of Transportation Works In The Name & Style Of ‘M/S Agarwala Transport’ & Filed Its Return Of Income On 27.09.2012 For The A.Y.2012-2013 Declaring Total Income At Rs.11,61,300/-. Similarly, The Assessee Filed Its Return Of Income For A.Y.2013-2014 On 21.09.2013 Declaring Total Income At Rs.10,67,380/-. Both The Cases Of The Assessee

For Appellant: Shri S.N.Sahu &For Respondent: Shri Subhendu Dutta, DR
Section 145(3)Section 271ASection 44A

M/S. Agarwal Transport Corporation, Cuttack vs. ITO, Ward-2(1), Cuttack

In the result, both appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 406/CTK/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack16 Dec 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri C.M. Garg, Jm & Shri L.P. Sahu, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं./Ita Nos.406&407/Ctk/2019 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Years :2012-2013 & 2013-2014) M/S Agarwal Transport Corp. Vs. Ito, Ward-2(1),Cuttack At: Bagha Mangala Lane, Mangalabag, Po: Buxi Bazar,Cuttack-753001 स्थायी लेखा सं./Pan No. : Aaffa 2795 K (अऩीलाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) : ननधाारिती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri S.N.Sahu & Shri Somnath Sahu, Advocates िाजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Subhendu Dutta, Dr सुनवाई की तािीख / Date Of Hearing : 28/11/2019 घोषणा की तािीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 16/12/2019 आदेश / O R D E R Per L.P.Sahu, Am: These Two Appeals Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Cit(A), Cuttack, Dated 07.09.2018 & 31.08.2018 For The Assessment Years 2012-2013 & 2013-2014. 2. The Sole Issue Involved In Both The Appeals Of The Assessee Is With Regard To Confirming The Penalty Levied U/S.271A Of The Act. 3. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Derives Income From Execution Of Transportation Works In The Name & Style Of ‘M/S Agarwala Transport’ & Filed Its Return Of Income On 27.09.2012 For The A.Y.2012-2013 Declaring Total Income At Rs.11,61,300/-. Similarly, The Assessee Filed Its Return Of Income For A.Y.2013-2014 On 21.09.2013 Declaring Total Income At Rs.10,67,380/-. Both The Cases Of The Assessee

For Appellant: Shri S.N.Sahu &For Respondent: Shri Subhendu Dutta, DR
Section 145(3)Section 271ASection 44A

Sangeeta Kesharwani, Howrah vs. ITO, Ward - 47(3), Kolkata

Appeal is allowed

ITA 641/KOL/2018[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata20 Nov 2019AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. A.L. Sainiassessment Year :2008-09 Sangeeta Kesharwani V/S. Income Tax Officer 134F, Sukhi Sansar Ward-47(3), 3,Govt. Apartment, Salkia School Place (West), Road, Golabari, Howrah- Kolkata-700 001 711 106 [Pan No.Agvpk 8338 A] .. अपीलाथ" /Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent Shri Pinki Shaw, Ar अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/By Appellant Shri Probhas Roy, Jcit-Dr ""यथ" क" ओर से/By Respondent 13 -11-2019 सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing 20-11-2019 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S.Godara:- This Assessee’S Appeal For Assessment Year 2008-09 Arises Against Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-14 Kolkata’S Order Dated 31.01.2018 Passed In Case No.68/Cit(A)-14/Wd-47(3)/2016-17 Upholding Assessing Officer’S Action Imposing Penalty Of ₹25,000/- Involving Proceedings U/S 271A Of The Income Tax Act, 1961; In Short ‘The Act’. Heard Both The Parties. Case File Perused. 2. The Assessee’S Sole Substantive Grievance Pleaded In The Instant Appeal Challenges Correctness Of Both The Lower Authorities Action Imposing U/S 271A For Not Maintaining Books Of Account Regarding Derivatives Trading In Stock Exchange. The Assessing Officer As Well As Cit(A) Are Of The View That The Assessee’S Future & Options Transactions (F&O) Value Reads A Figure Of

Section 271ASection 44A