Section 271B of the Income Tax Act

The decision most relied on for Section 271B is Ashok Pai v. CIT (292 ITR 11), cited in 812 of the 1,993 judgments on BharatTax that turn on this section.

Leading authorities on Section 271B

Ashok Pai v. CIT
292 ITR 11 · 2007 · Supreme Court
812
citing judgments

“Concealment of particulars of income” and “furnishing inaccurate particulars of income” are two distinct offences under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act. A penalty cannot be levied under one limb if the show cause notice or basis for penalty specifies the other, as this constitutes a complete variance in the reasons for assuming jurisdiction.

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. 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.

Azadi Bachao Andolan v. Union of India
252 ITR 471 · 2001 · High Court
57
citing judgments

A penalty under sections like 271D or 271E is not automatically imposed if the assessee proves there was a reasonable cause for the failure. The interpretation of 'reasonable cause' is that which would prevent a person of average intelligence and ordinary prudence from acting negligently or in bad faith.

DIT v. Mahindra & Mahindra Ltd.
365 ITR 560 · 2014 · High Court
56
citing judgments

If a sum is not chargeable to tax in the hands of the recipient, the payer is not obligated to deduct tax at source, and consequently, no disallowance under section 40(a)(i) can be made. The Bombay High Court also affirmed that penalty proceedings under section 271B may be quashed in certain circumstances.

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.

P.Senthil Kumar v. PCIT
416 ITR 336 · 2019 · High Court
48
citing judgments

Penalty under section 271B is not leviable for a venial technical breach, such as the late filing of a tax audit report, if there is no mala fide intention and the assessee demonstrates reasonable cause.

Bhailal Manilal Patel v. CIT
49 Taxmann.com 539 · 2014 · High Court
47
citing judgments

Penalty under section 271(1)(c) cannot be imposed based on a protective assessment order. Initiation of penalty proceedings is impermissible without a substantive assessment order that finally adds income to the assessee's hands.

Judgments on Section 271B

Nishant Goyal, Chandigarh vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 2(1), Chandigarh

The appeals stand allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 765/CHANDI/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh24 Dec 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Laliet Kumar, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am 1. आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.763/Chandi/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2013-14) & 2. आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.764/Chandi/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2013-14) & 3. आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.765/Chandi/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2013-14) Shri Nishant Goyal Income Tax Officer-Ward 2(1) बनाम/ House No.3135, Sector 20-D Sector-17 Vs. Chandigarh - 160020 Chandigarh - 160017 "ायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.Aqmpg-0609-D (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri Rahul Khurana (Ca) – Ld. Ar ""थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Dr. Ranjit Kaur (Addl. Cit) – Ld. Sr. Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 24.12.2025 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement 24.12.2025 : आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench 1. Aforesaid Appeals By Assessee For Assessment Year (Ay) 2013- 14 Arises Out Of Separate Orders Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax

For Appellant: Shri Rahul Khurana (CA) – Ld. ARFor Respondent: Dr. Ranjit Kaur (Addl. CIT) – Ld. Sr. DR
Section 271(1)(c)Section 271ASection 271B

Sh. Nishant Goyal, Chandigarh vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 2(1), Chandigarh

The appeals stand allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 764/CHANDI/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh24 Dec 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Laliet Kumar, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am 1. आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.763/Chandi/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2013-14) & 2. आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.764/Chandi/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2013-14) & 3. आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.765/Chandi/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2013-14) Shri Nishant Goyal Income Tax Officer-Ward 2(1) बनाम/ House No.3135, Sector 20-D Sector-17 Vs. Chandigarh - 160020 Chandigarh - 160017 "ायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.Aqmpg-0609-D (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri Rahul Khurana (Ca) – Ld. Ar ""थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Dr. Ranjit Kaur (Addl. Cit) – Ld. Sr. Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 24.12.2025 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement 24.12.2025 : आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench 1. Aforesaid Appeals By Assessee For Assessment Year (Ay) 2013- 14 Arises Out Of Separate Orders Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax

For Appellant: Shri Rahul Khurana (CA) – Ld. ARFor Respondent: Dr. Ranjit Kaur (Addl. CIT) – Ld. Sr. DR
Section 271(1)(c)Section 271ASection 271B

Nishant Goyal, Chandigarh vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 2(1), Chandigarh

The appeals stand allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 763/CHANDI/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh24 Dec 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Laliet Kumar, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am 1. आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.763/Chandi/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2013-14) & 2. आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.764/Chandi/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2013-14) & 3. आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.765/Chandi/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2013-14) Shri Nishant Goyal Income Tax Officer-Ward 2(1) बनाम/ House No.3135, Sector 20-D Sector-17 Vs. Chandigarh - 160020 Chandigarh - 160017 "ायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.Aqmpg-0609-D (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri Rahul Khurana (Ca) – Ld. Ar ""थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Dr. Ranjit Kaur (Addl. Cit) – Ld. Sr. Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 24.12.2025 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement 24.12.2025 : आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench 1. Aforesaid Appeals By Assessee For Assessment Year (Ay) 2013- 14 Arises Out Of Separate Orders Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax

For Appellant: Shri Rahul Khurana (CA) – Ld. ARFor Respondent: Dr. Ranjit Kaur (Addl. CIT) – Ld. Sr. DR
Section 271(1)(c)Section 271ASection 271B