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 Shakti Oil Mill, Burdwan vs. I.T.O, WD -(1)4, Durgapur

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2088/KOL/2013[2009-2010]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata05 Dec 2016AY 2009-2010

Bench: Dr. A.L.Saini, Am & Shri K. Narasimha Chary, Jm आयकर अपील सं./Ita No2088/Kol/2013 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year :2009-2010) M/S Shakti Oil Mill, Vs. Ito Ward-1(4), Durgapur Dhunra Plot, Benachity, Durgapur-713213, Dist-Burdwan, W.B "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aazfs 9744 E .. (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) "नधा"रती क" ओर से /Assessee By : Shri P.K.Roy, Advocate राज"व क" ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Biswanath Das, Jcit सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date Of Hearing : 16/11/2016 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement 05/12/2016 आदेश / O R D E R Per Dr. Arjun Lal Saini, Am: The Captioned Appeal Filed By The Assessee, Pertaining To The Assessment Year 2009-2010, Is Directed Against The Order Passed By Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-Durgapur, In Appeal No.166/Cit(A)/Dgp/2011-12, Dated 29.04.2013, Which In Turn Arises Out Of An Order Passed By The Assessing Officer (Ao) Under Section143(3) Of The Income Tax Act 1961, (In Short The ‘Act’), Dated 19.12.2011. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Qua The Issue Are That The Assessee Filed Its Return Of Income Through E-Filing On 30.09.2009 Disclosing Total Income At Nil. The Case Was Processed U/S.143(1) On 28.10.2010. Thereafter, The Case Was Selected For Scrutiny With The Prior Approval Of Cit, Durgapur. The Ao Completed The Assessment After Making Addition Of Rs.15,04,317/-, On Account Of Difference In Estimated Gross Profit. 3. Aggrieved From The Order Of Ao, The Assessee Filed Appeal Before

For Appellant: Shri P.K.Roy, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Biswanath Das, JCIT
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 271A