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

Ashwin Vaghasia, Surat vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward -3(1)(1), Surat

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 374/SRT/2017[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Surat30 Jul 2021AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.374/Srt/2017 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2006-07) (Virtual Court Hearing) Ashwin Vaghasia V The Income Tax Officer, 35, Sahyog Chambers Mini Bazar, S. Ward-3(1)(1), Surat. Sardar Chowk, Varachha Road, Surat - 395006 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Abmpv2520M (Assessee) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Mehul Shah, C.A. Respondent By : Mrs. Anupama Singla – Sr.Dr सुनवाईक"तार"ख/ Date Of Hearing : 13/07/2021 घोषणाक"तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 30/07/2021 आदेश / O R D E R Per Dr. A. L. Saini: Captioned Appeal Filed By The Assessee Pertaining To A.Y.2006-07 Is Directed Against The Order Passed By The Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals)-3, Surat, [Ld.Cit(A)] In Appeal No.Cas-3/Trfd/V/270/2014-15 Dated 25.10.2017, Which In Turn Arises Out Of A Penalty Order Passed By The Assessing Officer Under Section 271(1)(C) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Act”] Dated 19.03.2014. 2. The Solitary Grievance Of The Assessee In This Appeal Is That Learned Cit(Appeals) Has Erred In Confirming The Action Of Assessing Officer In Levying Penalty Of Rs.4,07,023/- Under Section 271(1) (C ) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961. 3.Brief Facts As Discernible From The Orders Of Lower Authorities Are That Assessee Is An Individual Before Us & He Filed His Return Of Income For The Year Under Consideration On 01.02.2007, Declaring Total Income Of Rs. 4,97,432/- Which Inter

For Appellant: Shri Mehul Shah, C.AFor Respondent: Mrs. Anupama Singla – Sr.DR
Section 143(3)Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)

Dr. Vishan Swaroop Gupta, Jaipur vs. ITO, Ward-7(3), Jaipur

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 13/JPR/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur28 Jan 2021AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav, Am Vk;Dj Vihy La-@Ita No. 13/Jp/2020 Fu/Kzkj.K O"Kz@Assessment Year :2015-16 Cuke Dr. Vishan Swaroop Gupta, I.T.O. Vs. Plot No. 2, Scheme No. 2, Arya Ward 7(3) Vihar Colony, Tonk Road, Jaipur. Jaipur. Lfkk;H Ys[Kk La-@Thvkbzvkj La-@Pan/Gir No.: Abipg 2253 Q Vihykfkhz@Appellant Izr;Fkhz@Respondent Fu/Kzkfjrh Dh Vksj Ls@ Assessee By : Shri Rajiv Khandelwal (Ca) Jktlo Dh Vksj Ls@ Revenue By : Smt. Monisha Choudhary (Addl.Cit) Lquokbz Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Hearing : 13/01/2021 Mn?Kks"K.Kk Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Pronouncement : 28/01/2021 Vkns'K@ Order Per: Sandeep Gosain, J.M. This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Ld.Cit(A)- 3, Jaipur Dated 30/10/2019 For The A.Y. 2015-16 In The Matter Of Order Passed U/S 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short, The Act), Wherein Following Grounds Have Been Taken. “1. The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-3, Jaipur (Hereinafter Referred To As The Cit(A)) Erred In Upholding The Action Of The Income Tax Officer, Ward 7(3), Jaipur (Hereinafter Referred To As The Assessing Officer) In Making An Addition Of Rs. 4,03,000/- Under Section 68 Of The Act As Alleged Unexplained Cash Deposited In Bank Accounts. 2. The Appellant Contends That On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Cit(A) Ought Not To Have Upheld The Action Of 2

For Appellant: Shri Rajiv Khandelwal (CA)For Respondent: Smt. Monisha Choudhary (Addl.CIT)
Section 143(3)Section 44ASection 68