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

Tarun Koley, Purba Medinipur vs. ITO, WD-27(3), Haldia., Haidia

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 869/KOL/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata20 Nov 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad, Hon’Ble & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Hon’Blei.T.A. No. 869/Kol/2023 Assessment Year: 2015-16 Tarun Koley Income Tax Officer, Ward- 27(3), S/O- Manindra Nath Koley Vs Haldia Parbatipur, Tamluk Purba Medinipur - 721636 [Pan: Aeypk0244C] अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Smt. Mita Rizvi, A/R Revenue By : Shri P.P. Barman, Addl. Cit, Sr. D/R सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 12/10/2023 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 20/11/2023 आदेश/O R D E R Per Dr. Manish Borad: The Above Captioned Appeal Is Directed At The Instance Of The Revenue Against The Order Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre, (Hereinafter The “Ld. Cit(A)”) Dt. 24/07/2023, Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (“The Act”) For The Assessment Year 2015-16. 2. The Sole Grievance Of The Assessee Is Against The Finding Of The Ld. Cit(A) Confirming The Levy Of Penalty Of Rs.10,000/- U/S 271B Of The Act Levied By The Assessing Officer For Not Complying To The Notice Issued U/S 142(1) Of The Act. 3. At The Outset, The Ld. Counsel For The Assessee Submitted That The Assessee Is Not Conversant With The Intricacies & Procedures Of The Income-Tax Requirements, Especially With Regard To The Income-Tax E- Proceedings & Was Completely Dependent On The Advices Of The Tax

For Appellant: Smt. Mita Rizvi, A/RFor Respondent: Shri P.P. Barman, Addl. CIT, Sr. D/R
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 148Section 250Section 271BSection 273B

Sukumar Chowdhury, Paschim Meminipur vs. ITO, Medinipur

In the result, both the appeals are treated as allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 391/KOL/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata20 Nov 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Dr. Manish Boradi.T.A Nos.391&318/Kol/2023 Assessment Year: 2015-16 Sukumar Chowdhury….…………………................................……Appellant Srinagar, Chandrakona, Paschim Medinipur -721242 [Pan: Acfpc9625C] Vs. Ito, Ward-38(1), Medinipur…….............……........……...…..…..Respondent Appearances By: Shri S. P. Datta, Ar, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Smt. Madhumita Das, Sr. Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : November 20, 2023 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : November 20, 2023 आदेश / Order संजय गग", "या"यक सद"य "वारा / Per Sanjay Garg: The Captioned Appeals Have Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Separate Orders Dated 21.02.2023 & 03.02.2023 Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Cit(A)’) Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’). Ita 318/Kol/2023 Is Relating To The Assessment Order Framed U/S 144 Of The Act, Whereas, Ita No.391/Kol/2023 Is Relating To The Penalty Levied U/S 271B Of The Act. Since, Both The Appeals Are Pertaining To The Same Assessee, Hence, The Same Have Been Heard Together & Are Being Disposed Of By This Common Order. 2. Earlier, These Appeals Of The Assessee Were Decided Vide Order Dated 4Th July 2023. However, The Assessee Thereafter Filed A M.A No.49/Kol/2023 Stating Therein That The Issue Involved In These Appeals

Section 144Section 250Section 271B

Sukumar Chowdhury, Paschim Medinipur vs. ITO, Medinipur

In the result, both the appeals are treated as allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 318/KOL/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata20 Nov 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Dr. Manish Boradi.T.A Nos.391&318/Kol/2023 Assessment Year: 2015-16 Sukumar Chowdhury….…………………................................……Appellant Srinagar, Chandrakona, Paschim Medinipur -721242 [Pan: Acfpc9625C] Vs. Ito, Ward-38(1), Medinipur…….............……........……...…..…..Respondent Appearances By: Shri S. P. Datta, Ar, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Smt. Madhumita Das, Sr. Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : November 20, 2023 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : November 20, 2023 आदेश / Order संजय गग", "या"यक सद"य "वारा / Per Sanjay Garg: The Captioned Appeals Have Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Separate Orders Dated 21.02.2023 & 03.02.2023 Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Cit(A)’) Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’). Ita 318/Kol/2023 Is Relating To The Assessment Order Framed U/S 144 Of The Act, Whereas, Ita No.391/Kol/2023 Is Relating To The Penalty Levied U/S 271B Of The Act. Since, Both The Appeals Are Pertaining To The Same Assessee, Hence, The Same Have Been Heard Together & Are Being Disposed Of By This Common Order. 2. Earlier, These Appeals Of The Assessee Were Decided Vide Order Dated 4Th July 2023. However, The Assessee Thereafter Filed A M.A No.49/Kol/2023 Stating Therein That The Issue Involved In These Appeals

Section 144Section 250Section 271B

Sushma Devi Bihani, Kolkata vs. Assessing Officer, Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 878/KOL/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata16 Nov 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg, Hon’Ble & Dr. Manish Borad, Hon’Blei.T.A. No. 878/Kol/2023 Assessment Year: 2014-15 Sushma Devi Bihani Assessing Officer, Nfac, 18/1B, Hindustan Road Vs Delhi Gariahat Kolkata - 700029 [Pan : Aeopb5488B] अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri B.K. Agarwal, A/R Revenue By : Shri Sallong Yaden, Addl. Cit, D/R सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 17/10/2023 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 16/11/2023 आदेश/O R D E R Per Dr. Manish Borad: The Present Appeal Is Directed At The Instance Of The Assessee Against The Order Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (Hereinafter The “Ld. Cit(A)”) Dt. 28/06/2023, Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (“The Act”) For The Assessment Year 2014-15. 2. Sole Grievance Of The Assessee Is That The Ld. Cit(A) Erred In Confirming The Penalty U/S 271B Of The Act At Rs. 82,885/- Levied By The Assessing Officer For Not Getting The Books Of Accounts Audited U/S 44Ab Of The Act. 3. At The Outset, The Ld. Counsel For The Assessee Submitted That The Turnover Of The Assessee Is Only Rs. 65,42,350/- & The Same Is Duly Supported By The Contract Notes & It Is Not The Case Of The Totaling Of Favourable & Unfavorable Difference Of The Transactions Carried Out During The Period But, In All Six Transaction Of Purchase & Six

For Appellant: Shri B.K. Agarwal, A/RFor Respondent: Shri Sallong Yaden, Addl. CIT, D/R
Section 250Section 271BSection 44A