Section 44AA of the Income Tax Act

Income-tax Act, 2025: s.62

Section 44AA of the Income-tax Act, 1961 corresponds to section 62 (Maintenance of books of account) of the Income-tax Act, 2025.

Read section 62 of the 2025 Act

Correspondence checked against the ICAI tabular mapping of the two Acts and the BharatTax.co section commentary.

The decision most relied on for Section 44AA is Surajmal Parsuram Todi v. CIT (222 ITR 691), cited in 114 of the 447 judgments on BharatTax that turn on this section.

Leading authorities on Section 44AA

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.

PCIT v. Delhi Airport Metro Express (P) Ltd.
398 ITR 8 · 2017 · High Court
63
citing judgments

The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (PCIT) cannot send a matter back to the Assessing Officer for a fresh assessment under Section 263(1) without first conducting an inquiry himself, especially if the basis for revision is the AO's alleged lack of inquiry. If the AO has made an inquiry and taken a plausible view, the PCIT must undertake fresh verification to demonstrate the AO's conclusion is erroneous and prejudicial.

Science Corp. India (P) Ltd. v. DCIT
163 Taxmann.com 693 · Reported
56
citing judgments

An order dismissing all grounds of appeal based on a single issue, in violation of Section 250(6), is an unlawful adjudication and renders the order irregular, making it a fit case for remand.

Mineral Development Corporation Ltd. v. ITAT
314 ITR 14 · High Court
55
citing judgments

An appellate authority cannot travel beyond the provisions of law when adjudicating matters, as doing so is barred by jurisdiction and renders the action otiose.

ACIT v. Prakash I. Shah
115 ITD 167 · 2008 · ITAT
51
citing judgments

The department cannot improve upon the Assessing Officer's case by changing the basis of additions without issuing a show cause notice to the assessee.

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.

Sandeep Chandak & Ors. v. CIT
55 ITR (Trib) 209 · 2017 · ITAT
49
citing judgments

The penalty provisions under Section 271AAB of the Income Tax Act are not mandatory, as indicated by the use of the word 'may' instead of 'shall', giving the Assessing Officer discretion whether to initiate and impose the penalty.

1) Bhagwan Sahai Sharma v. Dy. CIT
174 Taxmann.com 273 · 2025 · High Court
23
citing judgments

Reassessment proceedings initiated for AY 2015-16 after April 1, 2021, are barred by limitation and invalid, as per the amended provisions of the Finance Act, 2020.

Judgments on Section 44AA

Ramakrishnan, Chennai vs. ITO, Ncw-19(4), Chennai

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

ITA 51/CHNY/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai27 Apr 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 51/Chny/2019 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year: 2015-16 Shri Ramakrishnan, The Income Tax Officer, C 412, Fourth Street, V. Non-Corporate Ward-19(4), Periyar Nagar, Chennai - 34. Chennai – 600 082. Pan: Aaepr 7485C (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : Shri Ramakrishnan, Assessee ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri P. Muthushankar, Addl.Cit सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 27.04.2022 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 27.04.2022 आदेश /O R D E R Per Mahavir Singh, Vp: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Arising Out Of The Order Of Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-12, Chennai In Ita No.139/Cit(A)-12/17-18 Dated 31.10.2018. The Assessment Was Framed By The Income Tax Officer, Non-Corporate Ward 19(4), Chennai U/S.143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter The ‘Act’) For The Assessment Year 2015-16 Vide Order Dated 08.12.2017. I.T.A. No.51/Chny/2019 2 2. The Only Issue In This Appeal Of Assessee Is Against The Order Of Cit(A) Confirming The Action Of Ao In Making Assessment U/S.44Ad Of The Act On Presumptive Basis Despite The Fact That The Assessee Has Maintained Books Of Account As Prescribed U/S.44Aa Of The Act. For This Assessee Has Raised Various Grounds & Even In Concise Grounds, He Has Raised Various Argumentative Issues, Which Need Not Tobe Reproduced.

For Appellant: Shri Ramakrishnan, AssesseeFor Respondent: Shri P. Muthushankar, Addl.CIT
Section 143(3)Section 44A

Shri Sheo Bhagwan Goel, Raipur (Cg) vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Imcome Tax, Raipur (Cg)

The appeal of the assessee is allowed in aforesaid terms, with no order as to cost

ITA 290/BIL/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur01 Apr 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Jamlappa D. Battullआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos. 290/Rpr/2016 धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2012-2013 Sheo Bhagwan Goel 121, Mapel Parthivi Pacific, Ge Road, Raipur (C.G.) Pan : Aikpg 3811 D .......अपीलार्थी / Appellant बिाम / V/S. Asstt Commissioner Of Income Tax, .……प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent Circle – 4(1), Raipur C.G) Appearances Assessee By : Shri G. S. Agrawal Revenue By : Shri G. N. Singh सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Conclusive Hearing : 09/02/2022 घोषणा की तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement : 01/04/2022 आदेश / Order Per Jamlappa D. Battull, Am; The Present Appeal Of The Assessee Is Assailed Against The Order Of The First Appellate Commissioner Of Income Tax - Appeals-1, Raipur [For Short “Cit(A)”] Passed U/S 250 Vide Order Dt 16/05/2016, Which In Turn Sprung From The Assessment Order [For Short “Ao”] Dt 28/02/2015 Passed By The Ld Assessing Officer [For Short “Ld Ao”] U/S 143(3) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 [For Short “The Act”] For Assessment Year [For Short “Ay”] 2012-2013. Itat-Raipur Page 1 Of 9

For Appellant: Shri G. S. AgrawalFor Respondent: Shri G. N. Singh
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 44A

Yogesh Parashram Pangarkar, Pune vs. Income-Tax Officer, Ward - 11(2), Pune

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 1162/PUN/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Pune15 Mar 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri S.S.Viswanethra Ravi, Hon’Ble Jm & Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Hon’Ble Am आयकरअपीलसं. / Ita No.1162/Pun/2018 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year : 2013-14 Yogesh Parashram Pangarkar, The Income Tax Officer, Ward- S.No.259, Kalwadlohgaon Road, Vs 11(2), Pune. Kalwd, Pune – 411032. Pan: Ajepp 0509 Q Appellant/ Assessee Respondent /Revenue Assessee By Shri Bharat Shah – Ar Revenue By Shri S.P.Walimbe– Dr Date Of Hearing 16/02/2022 Date Of Pronouncement 15/03/2022 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Directed Against The Order Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals)-1, Pune, Appeal Number.Pn/Cit(A)1/Dcit,Cir.1(2)/Pn/508/16-17 Dated 12.01.2018 For The Assessment Year 2013-14.The Assessee Raised Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1) The Authorities Below Erred In Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law In Levying Penalty Of Rs.25000/- U/S 271A When The Assessee Has Maintained Proper Books Of Accounts. Just & Proper Relief Be Granted To The Assessee In This Respect. 2) The Appellant Prays To Be Allowed To Add, Amend, Modify, Rectify, Delete, Raise Any Ground Of Appeal Before Or At The Time Of Hearing.” 2. Brief Facts Of The Case, As Emanating From The Order Of The Ld.Cit(A), Are That The Assessee Is A Doctor By A Profession. The Professional Receipts Of The Assessee During The Year Was Of Rs.15,39,837/-. As Per Provisions Of Section 44Aa Of The Act, The Appellant Was Required To Maintain Books Of Accounts As Mentioned In The Income Tax Rules 6F. During The Assessment

Section 271ASection 44A