Section 44AB of the Income Tax Act

Income-tax Act, 2025: s.63

Section 44AB of the Income-tax Act, 1961 corresponds to section 63 (Tax Audit) of the Income-tax Act, 2025.

Read section 63 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 44AB is Ashok Pai v. CIT (292 ITR 11), cited in 812 of the 2,486 judgments on BharatTax that turn on this section.

Leading authorities on Section 44AB

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.

MALPE VISHWANATH ACHARYA AND OTHERS v. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANOTHER. 365 32
9 SCC 1 · 2018 · Supreme Court
533
citing judgments
Saurashtra Cement and Chemical Industries Ltd. v. CIT
213 ITR 523 · 1995 · High Court
311
citing judgments

Expenditure is deductible in the year it is determined and crystallised as a liability, even if it relates to a transaction of an earlier year, provided accounts are maintained on a mercantile basis.

CIT v. Vijay M. Mistry Construction Ltd.
355 ITR 498 · 2013 · High Court
252
citing judgments

In cases of alleged bogus or hawala purchases where the existence of transactions is not entirely denied, only the profit element embedded in such purchases, and not the entire purchase price, can be added to the assessee's income. The focus is on determining a reasonable profit percentage for such additions.

Mahindra and Mahindra Ltd. v. DCIT
30 SOT 374 · 2009 · ITAT
201
citing judgments

The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) cannot expand the scope of an assessment or improve the Assessing Officer's case in a manner that usurps the revisional power of the Commissioner of Income Tax under Section 263 of the Income-tax Act.

Chandra Kishore Jha v. Mahavir Prasad
8 SCC 266 · 1999 · Supreme Court
163
citing judgments

If a statute or law prescribes that a thing must be done in a particular manner, then it must be done in that manner alone and in no other way. This principle mandates strict adherence to statutory procedures.

CIT v. Contimeters Electricals (P.) Ltd.
317 ITR 249 · 2009 · High Court
140
citing judgments

The requirement to file an audit report along with the return of income under section 80-IA(7) and similar provisions is directory, not mandatory. Such a report suffices if filed at any time before the assessment is framed.

Vijay Trading Co. v. ITO
388 ITR 377 · 2016 · High Court
119
citing judgments

When purchases are found bogus, only the profit element embedded therein, and not the entire purchase value, can be added to the assessee's income.

CIT v. Berger Paints (India) Ltd.
254 ITR 503 · 2002 · High Court
118
citing judgments

A deduction claimed under Section 80-IB (or 80-IA) cannot be denied solely on the ground of non-filing or delayed filing of the audit report in Form 10CCB, as such procedural requirements can be treated as directory, and delays may be condoned.

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.

Judgments on Section 44AB

Dr. Shantanu Datta, Hooghly vs. ITO, Ward-23(1), Kolkata, Hooghly

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 261/KOL/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata11 May 2018AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap, Am & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi, Jm] I.T.A. No. 261/Kol/2017 Assessment Year: 2013-14 Dr. Shantanu Datta..................................…………………………....................................Appellant Baganbati, Khalisani, Chandannagar, Hooghly, Pin – 712 138 [Pan : Aecpd 5385 D] Ito, Ward 23(1)..…………………………………………………………................................Respondent Aayakar Bhawan, Khadinamore, Chinsurah, Hooghly – 712 101 Appearances By: Shri S.P. Datta, Advocate Appearing On Behalf Of The Assessee. Shri A. Bhattacharjee, Addl. Cit Appearing On Behalf Of The Revenue. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : May 08, 2018 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : May 11, 2018 Order Per P.M. Jagtap, Am This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of Ld. Cit(A) – 6, Kolkata Dated 14.12.2016 Whereby He Confirmed The Penalty Of Rs. 26,812/- Imposed By The A.O. Under Section 271B Of The Income Tax Act, 1961. 2. The Assessee In The Present Case Is An Individual Who Is Doctor By Profession. During The Year Under Consideration, He Derived Income From His Two Clinics Viz. Accutare & Dutta Clinic. During The Course Of Assessment Proceedings, It Was Noticed By The A.O. That Gross Receipts Of The Two Clinics Of The Assessee For The Year Under Consideration Were Rs. 53,62,470/- & He, Therefore, Was Required To Gets His Accounts Audited & Furnish The Report Of Such Audit As Per

Section 271BSection 44A

Arup Kumar Hazra, Midnapore vs. I.T.O. Ward - 39(2), Midnapore

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2385/KOL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata04 May 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Sri J. Sudhakar Reddy] I.T.A. No. 2385/Kol/2017 Assessment Year: 2012-13 Arup Kumar Hazra…………….……………………………………..……..…………………………….. Appellant C/O. S.N. Ghosh & Associates, Advocates Seben Brothers’ Lodge P.O. Buroshibtala Chinsurah Dist. Hooghly Pin – 712 105 [Pan : Aorph 9261 R] I.T.O. Ward-39(2), Midnapore..…………….…………………………………………….…….. Respondent Income Tax Office Sahoo Bhawan Khudiram Nagar P.O. Midnapore Dist. Midnapore (W) Pin – 721 101 Appearances By: Shri Somnath Ghosh, Advocate, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee. Shri Pinaki Mukherjee, Addl. Cit, Sr. Dr, Appearing On Behalf Of The Revenue Date Of Concluding The Hearing : April 19Th, 2018 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : May 4Th, 2018 O R D E R Per J. Sudhakar Reddy :- This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Directed Against The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-11, Kolkata, (Hereinafter The ‘Ld. Cit(A)’), Dt. 22/09/2017, Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter The ‘Act’), Relating To Assessment Year 2012-13. 2. The Assessee Is An Individual & Is A Dealer In Liquefied Petroleum Gas Of Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. He Has A Proprietary Concern Under The Name & Style Of M/S. Paul Service Station. He Filed His Return Of Income On 29Th September, 2012, Disclosing Total Income At Rs.6,74,512/-. The Assessing Officer Completed The Assessment U/S 143(3) Of The Act, By Determining The Total Income Of The Assessee At Rs.38,66,460/-, Interalia Making Addition On Account Of Concealed Investment, Alleged Gross Profit Earned On Commission On Estimate Basis, Violation Of Provision Of Section 269Ss Of The Act, Etc. The Assessee Carried The Matter In Appeal.

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 269SSection 44A

Maniga Jewellery, Coimbatore vs. ACIT Non Corporate Circle 2, Coimbatore

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1692/CHNY/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai27 Apr 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Abraham P. George & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddyआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.1692/Chny/2017 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year:2012-13 M/S. Maniga Jewellery The Assistant Commissioner Of Represented By Its Erstwhile Partner Vs. Income Tax, Smt. A. Deepa, No. 208, Gowtham Non Corporate Circle 2, Arcade, 2Nd Floor, T V Samy Road, Coimbatore. R.S. Puram, Coimbatore 641 002. [Pan: Aaofm5053D] (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से / Appellant By : Shri N.V. Balaji, Advocate ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Smt. Vijayaprabha, Jcit सुनवाई क" तार"ख/ Date Of Hearing : 12.04.2018 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement : 27.04.2018 आदेश /O R D E R Per Duvvuru Rl Reddy: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) 2, Coimbatore, Dated 31.03.2017 Relevant To The Assessment Year 2012-13. Besides Raising Various Grounds In The Grounds Of Appeal, The Ld. Counsel For The Assessee Mainly Argued That The Assessee Was Not Given Sufficient

For Appellant: Shri N.V. Balaji, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Vijayaprabha, JCIT
Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 44A