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

M/S Kanippayyur Service Co-Op Bank, Thrissur vs. ITO Ward 1, Guruvayoor

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 923/COCH/2022[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin06 Jun 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora, Am & Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No. 923/Coch/2022 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2012-13) Kanippayyur Service Co- बनाम/ Cit(A)/Income Tax Operative Bank, Department, National Vs. Kanippayyur, Faceless Appeal Centre Kunnamkulam, Thrissur- (Nfac), Delhi. 680517. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aabtk8207E (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) .. (""थ" / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Vipin K. K Revenue By: Smt J. M Jamuna Devi, (Sr. Ar) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 17/05/2023 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 06/06/2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Aby T. Varkey, Jm: This Is An Appeal Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A)/Nfac Dated 24.08.2022 For Ay. 2012-13. 2. The Main Grievance Of The Assessee Is Against The Action Of The Ld. Cit(A) Confirming The Penalty Levied Against The Assessee Society U/S 271B Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter “The Act”). 3. Brief Facts As Noted By The Ao Is That The Assessee Is A Primary Credit Society & Turnover Was To The Tune Of Rs.3,12,85,157/-. Therefore, According To Ao, Since The Assessee’S Turnover Was More Than Rs.1 Crores [As Per Section 44Ab Of The Act] It Was Liable To Get Its Accounts Audited By An Accountant Before The Specified Date; & Furnished By That Date, Report Of Such Audit, In The Prescribed Form Duly Signed & Verified By Accountant By Setting Forth Such Particulars As May Be Prescribed. According To The Ao, The Assessee Failed To Furnish

For Appellant: Shri Vipin K. KFor Respondent: Smt J. M Jamuna Devi, (Sr. AR)
Section 271BSection 44A

M/S.the Paravur Service Co-Op Bank Ltd, Kollam vs. The ITO, Kollam

In the result, the appeal of the assessee and Stay Petition are dismissed

ITA 105/COCH/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin05 Jun 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora, Am & Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No. 105/Coch/2023 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18) M/S. Paravur Service Co- बनाम/ Ito, Income Tax Operative Bank Ltd, Bank Department Vs. Building, Paravur, Post, Kollam. Thiruvananthapuram- 691301. Pan No. Aakas9699E (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) .. (""थ" / Respondent) Sp. No. 45/Coch/2023 Arising Out Of Ita. No.105/Coch/2023 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18) M/S. Paravur Service Co- बनाम/ Ito, Income Tax Operative Bank Ltd, Bank Department Vs. Building, Paravur, Post, Kollam. Thiruvananthapuram- 691301. Pan No. Aakas9699E "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaaap1047R (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) .. (""थ" / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Santhosh P Abraham Revenue By: Smt J. M Jamuna Devi, (Sr. Ar) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 18/05/2023 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 05/06/2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench This Is An Appeal Preferred By The Assessee Society Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A)/Nfac Dated 24.01.2023 For Ay. 2017-18. Since We Proceed With The Hearing Of Appeal On Merits, The Stay Petition Filed By Assessee Against Demand Raised Has Become In- Fructuous & So Is Dismissed.

For Appellant: Shri Santhosh P AbrahamFor Respondent: Smt J. M Jamuna Devi, (Sr. AR)
Section 143(2)Section 271BSection 274Section 44ASection 80P

Sagarkumar Ishwarbhai Bhavani, Mumbai vs. ITO, Ward-32(3)(3), Mumbai

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

ITA 75/MUM/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 May 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.75/Mum/2023 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2016-17) Sagarkumar Ishwarbhai बिधम/ Ito, Ward-32(3)(3) Bhavani Room No. 105, C-Wing, Vs. 1St Floor, Kautilya D-103 D-103, Amozan Park Ii Devki Nagar Link Road, Bhavan, Bkc, Bandra Borivali-West-400103. (E), Mumbai-400051. स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Agupb5616P (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Rakesh Joshi (Amicus Curiae) Revenue By: Shri Anil Gupta सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 02/03/2023 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 30/05/2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Aby T. Varkey, Jm: This Is An Appeal Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A)/Nfac, Delhi Dated 16.12.2022 For Ay. 2016-17. 2. Grounds Raised By Assessee Are As Under: - “1. In The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Ld. Ao Erred In Wrongly Holding That Service Tax Is Liable To Be Included In The Turnover For The Purpose Of Tax Audit Which Is Against The Definition Of Turnover As Per Institute Of Chartered Accountants Of India Guidelines. Without Prejudice To The Above 2. In The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Ld. Ao Erred In Adding An Amount Of Rs.8,31,631/- By Adopting Arbitrary Rate Of Net Profit @ 15% While Computing Income As Per Normal Provisions Of The Act & Wrongly Holding That The Appellant Is Outside The Purview Of Section 44Ad & The Cit(A) Erred In Partly Confirming The Same.

For Appellant: Shri Rakesh Joshi (Amicus Curiae)For Respondent: Shri Anil Gupta
Section 234ASection 274Section 28Section 30Section 44A