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

Arvind Kumar, Kanpur Nagar vs. ITO Ward 1(2) (1), Kanpur Nagar

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

ITA 285/LKW/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow30 Apr 2026AY 2019-20

Bench: Sh. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Sh. Nikhil Choudharya.Y. 2019-20 Arvind Kumar, Vs. Income Tax Officer, C/O Shri Shailendra Sachan Ward-1(2)(1), Kanpur (Advocate) R/O 113/223 Swaroop Nagar, Kanpur Pan: Ekypk0062C (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: None Revenue By: Sh. R.R.N. Shukla, Addl Cit Dr Date Of Hearing: 05.02.2026 Date Of Pronouncement: 30.04.2026 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 Dated 14.02.2025, Wherein The Ld. Cit(A) Has Upheld The Penalty Of Rs. 1,50,000/- Levied Upon The Assessee Under Section 271B Of The Income Tax Act. The Grounds Of Appeal Are As Under:- “1. That The Ld. Cit(A), Nfac Has Erred In Law & On Facts By Sustaining The Penalty Of Rs. 150000/- Imposed By The Ld. Ao U/S 271B Of The I.T. Act, 1961. 2. That The Penalty Order Of The Ld. Cit(A) U/S 271B Of The I.T. Act, 1961 Is Illegal, Wholly Unjustified, Unsustainable In Law & Deserves To Be Deleted. 3. That Any Other Relief Or Reliefs As May Deem Fit In The Case & Circumstances Be Granted. 4. That The Appellant Craves Leave To Add, Amend Or Withdraw Any Grounds Of Appeal On Or Before Hearing Of Appeal.” 2. The Facts Of The Case Are That During The Course Of Assessment Proceedings, The Ld. Ao Observed That The Assessee Had A Turnover Of Rs.

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Sh. R.R.N. Shukla, Addl CIT DR
Section 147Section 271BSection 44A