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

S A Poultry Farms, Kancheepuram vs. ITO Ward2, Kancheepuram

The appeal stand allowed

ITA 632/CHNY/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai31 Aug 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh, Vp & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.632/Chny/2023 (िनधा)रण वष) / Assessment Year: 2017-18) M/S. S. A. Poultry Farms Ito बनाम 54/11, Vegavathi Nathi Street, Ward-2, / Vs. Kancheepuram-631 501. Kancheepuram. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Abyfs-5320-A (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (" थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant By : None " थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Ms. Deeptha M.S. (Jcit)-Ld.Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 31-08-2023 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 31-08-2023 आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal () 1. Aforesaid Appeal By Assessee For Assessment Year (Ay) 2017-18 Arises Out Of The Order Of Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [Cit(A)] Dated 29-03- 2023 Confirming Penalty U/S 271B For Rs.1.50 Lacs. The Impugned Penalty Has Been Levied By Ld. Ao Vide Order Dated 23-06-2021. At The Time Of Hearing, None Appeared For Assessee. The Ld. Sr. Dr Submitted That Penalty Was Mandatory In Nature & Therefore, The Impugned Order May Be Confirmed. Having Considered Material On Record, The Appeal Is Disposed-Off As Under.

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Ms. Deeptha M.S. (JCIT)-Ld.DR
Section 142(1)Section 271BSection 273BSection 44A

Murugesan Santhi, Chennai vs. ITO, Che-C-(141)(1), Chennai

The appeal stand allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 585/CHNY/2023[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai31 Aug 2023AY 2019-20

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh, Vp & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.585/Chny/2023 (िनधा)रण वष) / Assessment Year: 2019-20) Mrs. Murugesan Santhi Ito बनाम C/O.Somasundaram & Sivaraman Cas, Che-C-141(1), 10,E Block, Kartik Apts, Chennai. / Vs. 46, Vijayaragava Road, Chennai-600 017. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Axlps-0206-N (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (" थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant By : None " थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Ms. Deeptha M.S. (Jcit)-Ld.Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 31-08-2023 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 31-08-2023 आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal () 1. Aforesaid Appeal By Assessee For Assessment Year (Ay) 2019-20 Arises Out Of The Order Of Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [Cit(A)] Dated 15-03- 2023 Confirming Penalty U/S 271B For Rs.1.50 Lacs. The Impugned Penalty Has Been Levied By Ld. Ao Vide Order Dated 24-01-2022. At The Time Of Hearing, None Appeared For Assessee. The Ld. Sr. Dr Submitted That Penalty Was Mandatory In Nature & Therefore, The Impugned Order

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Ms. Deeptha M.S. (JCIT)-Ld.DR
Section 271BSection 273BSection 44A

Nileshkumar Ramlaxman Upadhyay, Surat vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward - 2, Bardoli

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

ITA 172/SRT/2023[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Surat31 Aug 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.171 & 172/Srt/2023 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: (2010-11) (Virtual Court Hearing) Nileshkumar Ramlaxman Income Tax Officer Ward-2 Bardoli, 2Nd Floor, Bsnl Tower, Upadhyay Vs. 123, Bajar Faliyu, Raniamba Main Road, Bardoli-394601 Tapi, Surat-394365 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaopu 5931 C (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" /Respondent) "नधा"रती क" ओर से/ Assessee By : Shri Rakesh R. Shah, Ca राज"व क" ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Vinod Kumar, Sr. Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख/ Date Of Hearing : 07/08/2023 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 31/08/2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Dr. A. L. Saini: Captioned Two Appeals Filed By The Assessee, Pertaining To Same Assessment Year (Ay) 2010-11, Are Directed Against The Separate Orders Passed By The National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (For Short To As “Nfac” / Cit(A), Which In Turn Arise Out Of Separate Penalty Orders Passed By The Assessing Officer U/S 272B R.W.S 271B Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Act”] Dated 11.06.2018 & 13.06.2018 Respectively.

For Appellant: Shri Rakesh R. Shah, CAFor Respondent: Shri Vinod Kumar, Sr. DR
Section 272BSection 44A

Nileshkumar Ramlaxman Upadhyay, Surat vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward - 2, Bardoli

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

ITA 171/SRT/2023[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Surat31 Aug 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.171 & 172/Srt/2023 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: (2010-11) (Virtual Court Hearing) Nileshkumar Ramlaxman Income Tax Officer Ward-2 Bardoli, 2Nd Floor, Bsnl Tower, Upadhyay Vs. 123, Bajar Faliyu, Raniamba Main Road, Bardoli-394601 Tapi, Surat-394365 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaopu 5931 C (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" /Respondent) "नधा"रती क" ओर से/ Assessee By : Shri Rakesh R. Shah, Ca राज"व क" ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Vinod Kumar, Sr. Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख/ Date Of Hearing : 07/08/2023 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 31/08/2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Dr. A. L. Saini: Captioned Two Appeals Filed By The Assessee, Pertaining To Same Assessment Year (Ay) 2010-11, Are Directed Against The Separate Orders Passed By The National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (For Short To As “Nfac” / Cit(A), Which In Turn Arise Out Of Separate Penalty Orders Passed By The Assessing Officer U/S 272B R.W.S 271B Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Act”] Dated 11.06.2018 & 13.06.2018 Respectively.

For Appellant: Shri Rakesh R. Shah, CAFor Respondent: Shri Vinod Kumar, Sr. DR
Section 272BSection 44A