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

Rajmani Yadav, Jaunpur, Uttar Pradesh vs. I.T.O., Jaunpur-II, New

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

ITA 143/VNS/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Varanasi14 May 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Sh. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Sh. Nikhil Choudharya.Y. 2016-17 Rajmani Yadav, Vs. Income Tax Officer, Vill-Balua, Post-Mirshadpur, Jaunpur 222125, Jaunpur Pan: Acppy3832K (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Sh. Yaspal Gupta, Advocate Revenue By: Smt. Amandeep Kaur, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 18.02.2026 Date Of Pronouncement: 14.05.2026 O R D E R Per Nikhil Choudhary, A.M.: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Orders Of The Ld. Cit(A), Nfac Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 On 1.06.2025, Wherein The Ld. Cit(A) Has Partly Allowed The Appeals Of The Assessee Against The Orders Of The Ld. Assessing Officer Passed Under Section 143(3) For The A.Y. 2016-17 On 26.12.2018. The Grounds Of Appeal Are As Under:- “1. That The Learned A.O. Has On Presumptions & Arithmetical Calculations Arrived On An Imaginary Figure Of Rs. 4703235.00 As Undisclosed Capital & Has Proceeded To Make The Addition. The Learned C.Lt(Appeal) Income Tax Department Has Wrongly Confirmed The Addition Of 4703235.00 That The Learned C.I.T. (Appeal) Has Overlooked The Fact & Order Passed By A.O. On 28.08.2019 For The Assessment Year 2012-13, In Which Capital Balance Has Been Totally Accepted, Hence Order Passed By C.Lt.(A) Is Liable To Be Quashed & Addition Of Rs. 4703235.00 To Be Deleted.

For Appellant: Sh. Yaspal Gupta, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Amandeep Kaur, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 250Section 44A