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

Lakshmi Sadho Commercial (P)Ltd, Kolkata vs. ITO, Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is treated as allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 516/KOL/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata10 Jul 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Girish Agrawali.T.A. No.516/Kol/2023 Assessment Year: 2015-16 Lakshmi Sadho Commercial (P) Ltd........................................………....Appellant 134, Ashutosh Mukherjee Road, Kolkata-700025. [Pan: Aabcl6120C] Vs. Ito, Ward-10(2), Kolkata........…............................................…..…..... Respondent Appearances By: Shri Raj Kumar Agarwal, Ca, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri P. P Barman, Addl. Cit-Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : July 10, 2023 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : July 10, 2023 आदेश / Order संजय गग", "या"यक सद"य "वारा / Per Sanjay Garg: The Present Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 26.04.2023 Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Cit(A)’] Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’). 2. At The Outset, The Ld. Counsel For The Assessee Has Invited Our Attention To The Impugned Order Of The Cit(A) To Submit That The Ld. Cit(A) Has Dismissed The Appeal Of The Assessee Stating That The Same As Not Maintainable On The Ground That In The Appeal Form 35, The Assessee Has Mentioned The Relevant Section Under Which The Assessing Officer Has Passed The Order As 143(3) Of The Act, Whereas, The Appeal Before The Cit(A) Was Passed Against The Order Of The Assessing Officer U/S 271B Of The Act.

Section 250Section 271B

Manoj Kumar Agrawal, Raipur vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 4(4), Raipur

In the result, all the three appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 69/RPR/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur07 Jul 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.67-69/Rpr/2020 (Assessment Year: 2015-2016) Manoj Kumar Agrawal Vs Ito, Ward-4(4), Raipur Shop No.1 & 4, 2Nd Floor, Sahara India Life Insurance, Millenium Plaza,Raipur-4920014 Pan No. :Aclpa 8619 C (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) धििााररती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri Rakesh Kumar Chirania, Ca राजस्ि की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Choudhary N.C.Roy, Sr. Dr सुििाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 05/07/2023 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 07/07/2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Arun Khodpia, Am : These Three Appeals Have Been Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Passed By The Cit(A)-Ii, Raipur, Dated 29.01.2020 For The Assessment Year 2015-2016. 2. The Registry Has Pointed Out The Delay Of 66 Days In Filing The All The Three Appeals By The Assessee. In This Regard, Ld. Ar Of The Assessee Submitted That The Entire Delay Was Covered Due To Covid Period, Wherein The Limitation Was Extended By The Hon’Ble Supreme Court In The Suo Motu Writ Petition (Civil) No(S).3/2020, Dated 23.03.2020, Therefore, The Delay May Be Considered As No Delay On The Part Of The Assessee & The Appeals May Be Admitted For Hearing. Ld. Dr Also Did Not Object To The Contention Raised By The Assessee. Accordingly, We Condone The Delay Of 66 Days In Filing The Present Appeals By The Assessee & The Appeals Are Heard Finally.

For Appellant: Shri Rakesh Kumar Chirania, CAFor Respondent: Shri Choudhary N.C.Roy, Sr. DR
Section 271ASection 44A

Manoj Kumar Agrawal, Raipur vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 4(4), Raipur

In the result, all the three appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 68/RPR/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur07 Jul 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.67-69/Rpr/2020 (Assessment Year: 2015-2016) Manoj Kumar Agrawal Vs Ito, Ward-4(4), Raipur Shop No.1 & 4, 2Nd Floor, Sahara India Life Insurance, Millenium Plaza,Raipur-4920014 Pan No. :Aclpa 8619 C (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) धििााररती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri Rakesh Kumar Chirania, Ca राजस्ि की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Choudhary N.C.Roy, Sr. Dr सुििाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 05/07/2023 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 07/07/2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Arun Khodpia, Am : These Three Appeals Have Been Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Passed By The Cit(A)-Ii, Raipur, Dated 29.01.2020 For The Assessment Year 2015-2016. 2. The Registry Has Pointed Out The Delay Of 66 Days In Filing The All The Three Appeals By The Assessee. In This Regard, Ld. Ar Of The Assessee Submitted That The Entire Delay Was Covered Due To Covid Period, Wherein The Limitation Was Extended By The Hon’Ble Supreme Court In The Suo Motu Writ Petition (Civil) No(S).3/2020, Dated 23.03.2020, Therefore, The Delay May Be Considered As No Delay On The Part Of The Assessee & The Appeals May Be Admitted For Hearing. Ld. Dr Also Did Not Object To The Contention Raised By The Assessee. Accordingly, We Condone The Delay Of 66 Days In Filing The Present Appeals By The Assessee & The Appeals Are Heard Finally.

For Appellant: Shri Rakesh Kumar Chirania, CAFor Respondent: Shri Choudhary N.C.Roy, Sr. DR
Section 271ASection 44A

Manoj Kumar Agrawal, Raipur vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 4(4), Raipur

In the result, all the three appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 67/RPR/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur07 Jul 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.67-69/Rpr/2020 (Assessment Year: 2015-2016) Manoj Kumar Agrawal Vs Ito, Ward-4(4), Raipur Shop No.1 & 4, 2Nd Floor, Sahara India Life Insurance, Millenium Plaza,Raipur-4920014 Pan No. :Aclpa 8619 C (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) धििााररती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri Rakesh Kumar Chirania, Ca राजस्ि की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Choudhary N.C.Roy, Sr. Dr सुििाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 05/07/2023 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 07/07/2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Arun Khodpia, Am : These Three Appeals Have Been Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Passed By The Cit(A)-Ii, Raipur, Dated 29.01.2020 For The Assessment Year 2015-2016. 2. The Registry Has Pointed Out The Delay Of 66 Days In Filing The All The Three Appeals By The Assessee. In This Regard, Ld. Ar Of The Assessee Submitted That The Entire Delay Was Covered Due To Covid Period, Wherein The Limitation Was Extended By The Hon’Ble Supreme Court In The Suo Motu Writ Petition (Civil) No(S).3/2020, Dated 23.03.2020, Therefore, The Delay May Be Considered As No Delay On The Part Of The Assessee & The Appeals May Be Admitted For Hearing. Ld. Dr Also Did Not Object To The Contention Raised By The Assessee. Accordingly, We Condone The Delay Of 66 Days In Filing The Present Appeals By The Assessee & The Appeals Are Heard Finally.

For Appellant: Shri Rakesh Kumar Chirania, CAFor Respondent: Shri Choudhary N.C.Roy, Sr. DR
Section 271ASection 44A