Section 271AAC(1) of the Income Tax Act
Income-tax Act, 2025: s.443
Section 271AAC(1) falls under section 271AAC of the Income-tax Act, 1961, which corresponds to section 443 (Penalty in respect of certain income) of the Income-tax Act, 2025.
Read section 443 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 271AAC(1) is Office of the Chief Post Master General v. Living Media India Ltd. (348 ITR 7), cited in 50 of the 1,211 judgments on BharatTax that turn on this section.
Leading authorities on Section 271AAC(1)
The law of limitation applies to all, including the government. Condonation of delay in filing appeals requires a party to demonstrate sufficient, bona fide, and reasonable cause, as courts should not condone delays mechanically or for routine explanations, gross negligence, or inaction.
A Departmental Valuer's Report constitutes material for forming a belief of escaped income, validating reassessment proceedings.
The Income Tax Act, 1961 allows for best judgment assessments even in cases of search assessments under Section 153A, especially when the assessee fails to file a return.
The Supreme Court case CIT v. General Insurance Corporation (286 ITR 232) is cited for the proposition that it dealt with the issue of bonus shares, and therefore may not be applicable to cases involving the increase of authorized share capital.
Penalty proceedings are vitiated if the Assessing Officer's satisfaction is not based on the order passed by the Assessing Officer or the CIT(A). The jurisdiction to impose penalty rests with the authority that is satisfied about the concealment or furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income.
An assessment cannot be reopened merely because the Income Tax Officer forms a different opinion on the facts already examined, especially after the assessee has fully disclosed all material facts.
The court considers whether to condone a delay in filing an appeal, taking into account the explanation provided and the arguments from both parties.
Tribunals should not set aside an order passed by the CIT(A) without cogent reasons, and doing so without such reasons is arbitrary and unreasonable. However, the Supreme Court has affirmed this principle while dismissing an SLP on grounds of delay.
When an assessee has duly recorded the actual cost of construction and this cost has been accepted by the Tribunal, the opinion of a valuer cannot be substituted for the recorded cost without a finding that the building is of a better quality or larger than claimed.
