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

Sri Jagat Singh, Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward - 37(3), Kolkata

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

ITA 2475/KOL/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata07 Mar 2018AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap, Am] I.T.A. No. 2475/Kol/2017 Assessment Year: 2013-14 Shri Jagat Singh...............................………………………………………...........................Appellant C/O. Dcr Goods Carriers, 65A Pathuria Ghat Street (Near Bangur Dharamshala), Kolkata – 700 006 [Pan: Astps 3142 C] I.T.O. Ward 37(3) Kolkata,...................……………………………………………........Respondent 3, Government Place, Kolkata – 700 001 Appearances By: Shri Sunil Surana, Fca Appearing On Behalf Of The Assessee. Shri Imlimeren Jamir, Addl. Cit Appearing On Behalf Of The Revenue. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : March 05, 2018 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : March 07, 2018 Order Per P.M. Jagtap, Am This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of Ld. Cit (Appeals) – 12, Kolkata Dated 22.06.2017 Passed Ex-Parte Whereby He Confirmed The Penalty Of Rs. 1,50,000/- Imposed By The A.O. Under Section 271B Of The Income Tax Act, 1961. 2. The Assessee In The Present Is An Individual Who Is Engaged In The Business Of Goods Carrier. The Return Of Income For The Year Under Consideration Was Filed By Him On 30.09.2013 Declaring A Total Income Of Rs. 13,77,570/-. In The Said Return, Total Receipts Of His Business Were Shown By The Assessee At Rs. 5,37,26,890/-. However His Accounts For The Year Under Consideration Were Not Got Audited By The Assessee & The Report Of Such Audit Was Not Furnished By Him Within The Due Date As Required By The Provisions Of Section 44Ab.

Section 271BSection 44A

M/S R. K. Mondal & Brothers, Burdwan vs. ITO, WD-1(1), Durgapur

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee (in ITA

ITA 1146/KOL/2016[2010-2011]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata25 Jan 2018AY 2010-2011

Bench: Shri A.T. Varkey, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.1145 & 1146/Kol/2016 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2010-11) M/S. R.K. Mondal & Vs. I.T.O, W-1(1), Durgapur Brothers Aayakar Bithi, City Centre, Vill + P.O: Kajora Gram, Durgapur, Durgapur – 713216. Dist. Burdwan, Pin-713338. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. : Aahfr 6294 C (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Appellant By :Shri U. Dasgupta, Advocate Respondent By :Shri G.H. Seema, Addl. Cit सुनवाईकीतारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 15/01/2018 घोषणाकीतारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 25/01/2018 आदेश / O R D E R Per Dr. Arjun Lal Saini, Am: These Captioned Appeals Filed By The Assessee, Pertaining To Assessment Year 2010-11, Are Directed Against Orders Passed By The Cit(A)- Durgapur, In Appeal No.146/147/Cit(A)/Dgp/2012-13, Dated 18.02.2016, Which In Turn Arises Out Of Orders Passed By The Assessing Officer U/S 271A & 271(1)(B) Of The I.T. Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’). 2. Since, These Two Captioned Appeals Relate To The Same Assessee, Same Assessment Year, Therefore, These Have Been Clubbed & Heard Together & A Consolidated Order Is Being Passed For The Sake Of Convenience & Brevity. 3. These Two Captioned Appeals Filed By The Assessee Against The Orders Of Cit(A) Confirming The Penalty In Respect Of Violation Of Section 271A & 271(1)(B) Of The I.T. Act, 1961. M/S. R.K. Mondal & Brothers

For Appellant: Shri U. Dasgupta, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri G.H. Seema, Addl. CIT
Section 143(3)Section 144Section 271(1)(b)Section 271ASection 44A

M/S R. K. Mondal & Brothers, Burdwan vs. ITO, WD-1(1), Durgapur

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee (in ITA

ITA 1145/KOL/2016[2010-2011]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata25 Jan 2018AY 2010-2011

Bench: Shri A.T. Varkey, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.1145 & 1146/Kol/2016 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2010-11) M/S. R.K. Mondal & Vs. I.T.O, W-1(1), Durgapur Brothers Aayakar Bithi, City Centre, Vill + P.O: Kajora Gram, Durgapur, Durgapur – 713216. Dist. Burdwan, Pin-713338. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. : Aahfr 6294 C (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Appellant By :Shri U. Dasgupta, Advocate Respondent By :Shri G.H. Seema, Addl. Cit सुनवाईकीतारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 15/01/2018 घोषणाकीतारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 25/01/2018 आदेश / O R D E R Per Dr. Arjun Lal Saini, Am: These Captioned Appeals Filed By The Assessee, Pertaining To Assessment Year 2010-11, Are Directed Against Orders Passed By The Cit(A)- Durgapur, In Appeal No.146/147/Cit(A)/Dgp/2012-13, Dated 18.02.2016, Which In Turn Arises Out Of Orders Passed By The Assessing Officer U/S 271A & 271(1)(B) Of The I.T. Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’). 2. Since, These Two Captioned Appeals Relate To The Same Assessee, Same Assessment Year, Therefore, These Have Been Clubbed & Heard Together & A Consolidated Order Is Being Passed For The Sake Of Convenience & Brevity. 3. These Two Captioned Appeals Filed By The Assessee Against The Orders Of Cit(A) Confirming The Penalty In Respect Of Violation Of Section 271A & 271(1)(B) Of The I.T. Act, 1961. M/S. R.K. Mondal & Brothers

For Appellant: Shri U. Dasgupta, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri G.H. Seema, Addl. CIT
Section 143(3)Section 144Section 271(1)(b)Section 271ASection 44A