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

Income Tax Officer 1(1)(1), Kanpur vs. Ajay Kumar Gupta, Kanpur

In the result, ITA No.427/LKW/2024 is allowed for statistical purposes while CO No

ITA 427/LKW/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow25 Sept 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Sh. Subhash Malguria & Sh. Nikhil Choudharya.Y. 2017-18 Income Tax Officer-1(1)(1), Vs. Ajay Kumar Gupta, Kanpur, U.P. 51/92C, Naya Ganj, Kanpur Pan: Abkpg5651J (Appellant) (Respondent) C.O. No.26/Lkw/2024 In A.Y. 2017-18 Ajay Kumar Gupta, Vs. Income Tax Officer-1(1)(1), 51/92C, Naya Ganj, Kanpur Kanpur, U.P. Pan: Abkpg5651J (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Sh. Rakesh Garg, Adv Revenue By: Sh. R.R.N. Shukla, Addl Cit Dr Date Of Hearing: 04.09.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 25.09.2025 O R D E R Per Nikhil Choudhary, A.M.: [ This Appeal & Cross Objection Have Been Filed By The Revenue & The Assessee Respectively, Against The Orders Of The Ld. Cit, Nfac Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 On 10.05.2024, Wherein The Ld. Cit(A) Has Allowed The Appeal Of The Assessee Against The Orders Of The Ao Under Section 147 R.W.S. 144 Passed On 30.03.2022. The Grounds Of Appeal Are As Under:- “1. Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeal) Has Erred In Law & On Facts In Accepting The Contention Of The Assessee That The Proceedings Made U/S 147 Is Not In Accordance With Law. 2. Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeal) Has Erred In Law & On Facts In Deleting The Addition Made By The Ao On Account Of Unexplained Money U/S 69A Of Income Tax Act, 1961 Deposited During The F.Y.2016-17 Without Appreciating That The Ao Has 1 Co No.26/Lkw/2024 Ajay Kumar Gupta A.Y. 2017-18

For Appellant: Sh. Rakesh Garg, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. R.R.N. Shukla, Addl CIT DR
Section 142(1)Section 144Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 250Section 69A

ACIT, Cir.20(1), Mumbai vs. Girish Shamji Chheda, Mumbai

In the result, all the three appeals of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 3659/MUM/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Sept 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Smt. Renu Jauhriआयकर अपील सुं./Ita No.3657, 3658 & 3659/Mum/2025 (धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2020-2021) Acit, Cir. 20(1), V/S. Girish Shamji Chheda Mumbai बिाम 227, Sukh Sagar, Bhalchandra 3Rd Floor, Piramal Road, Matunga, Mumbai Chambers, Lalbaug, 400019 Parel, Mumbai 400012 स्थायी लेखा सुं./जीआइआर सुं./Pan/Gir No: Acypc2995G Appellant/अपीलाथी .. Respondent/प्रधिवादी धििााररिी की ओर से /Assessee By: Shri Fenil Bhatt, Adv. राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By: Shri Swapnil Choudhary – Sr Dr स िवाई की िारीख / Date Of Hearing 23.09.2025 घोर्णा की िारीख/Date Of Pronouncement 24.09.2025 आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench :- These Three Appeals Are Filed By The Revenue Against The Orders Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi [Cit(A)] Dated 13.03.2025 Passed U/S. 250 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 [Hereinafter Referred To As “Act”] For Assessment Year 2020-2021. 2. The Revenue Has Raised The Following Grounds In These Appeals.

For Appellant: Shri Fenil Bhatt, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Swapnil Choudhary – SR DR
Section 143(1)(a)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 270ASection 270A(3)Section 271ASection 271BSection 36(1)(iii)Section 44ASection 68

Assisstant Commissioner of Income Tax, Cir.20(1), Mumbai vs. Girish Shamji Chheda, Mumbai

In the result, all the three appeals of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 3658/MUM/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Sept 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Smt. Renu Jauhriआयकर अपील सुं./Ita No.3657, 3658 & 3659/Mum/2025 (धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2020-2021) Acit, Cir. 20(1), V/S. Girish Shamji Chheda Mumbai बिाम 227, Sukh Sagar, Bhalchandra 3Rd Floor, Piramal Road, Matunga, Mumbai Chambers, Lalbaug, 400019 Parel, Mumbai 400012 स्थायी लेखा सुं./जीआइआर सुं./Pan/Gir No: Acypc2995G Appellant/अपीलाथी .. Respondent/प्रधिवादी धििााररिी की ओर से /Assessee By: Shri Fenil Bhatt, Adv. राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By: Shri Swapnil Choudhary – Sr Dr स िवाई की िारीख / Date Of Hearing 23.09.2025 घोर्णा की िारीख/Date Of Pronouncement 24.09.2025 आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench :- These Three Appeals Are Filed By The Revenue Against The Orders Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi [Cit(A)] Dated 13.03.2025 Passed U/S. 250 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 [Hereinafter Referred To As “Act”] For Assessment Year 2020-2021. 2. The Revenue Has Raised The Following Grounds In These Appeals.

For Appellant: Shri Fenil Bhatt, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Swapnil Choudhary – SR DR
Section 143(1)(a)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 270ASection 270A(3)Section 271ASection 271BSection 36(1)(iii)Section 44ASection 68

ACIT, Cir.20(1), Mumbai, Muimbai vs. Girish Shamji Chheda, Mumbai

In the result, all the three appeals of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 3657/MUM/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Sept 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Smt. Renu Jauhriआयकर अपील सुं./Ita No.3657, 3658 & 3659/Mum/2025 (धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2020-2021) Acit, Cir. 20(1), V/S. Girish Shamji Chheda Mumbai बिाम 227, Sukh Sagar, Bhalchandra 3Rd Floor, Piramal Road, Matunga, Mumbai Chambers, Lalbaug, 400019 Parel, Mumbai 400012 स्थायी लेखा सुं./जीआइआर सुं./Pan/Gir No: Acypc2995G Appellant/अपीलाथी .. Respondent/प्रधिवादी धििााररिी की ओर से /Assessee By: Shri Fenil Bhatt, Adv. राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By: Shri Swapnil Choudhary – Sr Dr स िवाई की िारीख / Date Of Hearing 23.09.2025 घोर्णा की िारीख/Date Of Pronouncement 24.09.2025 आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench :- These Three Appeals Are Filed By The Revenue Against The Orders Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi [Cit(A)] Dated 13.03.2025 Passed U/S. 250 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 [Hereinafter Referred To As “Act”] For Assessment Year 2020-2021. 2. The Revenue Has Raised The Following Grounds In These Appeals.

For Appellant: Shri Fenil Bhatt, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Swapnil Choudhary – SR DR
Section 143(1)(a)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 270ASection 270A(3)Section 271ASection 271BSection 36(1)(iii)Section 44ASection 68

Lilavantiben Gordhanbhai Padariya, Rajkot vs. ITO, Ward 1(1)(3), Rajkot

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

ITA 372/RJT/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot19 Sept 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No. 372/Rjt/ 2023 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2013-14) Lilavantiben Gordhanbhai Padariya Vs. Ito, Wd – 1(1)(3), Rajkot Vrajdham, Shardanagar Main Road, Aayakar Bhavan, Race Course Mabdi Road, Rajkot – 360001 Ring Road, Rajkot – 360001 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Acgpp7067E (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By : Shri D. M. Rindani, Ld.Ar Respondent By : Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Ld. Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 24/06/2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 19/09/2025 आदेश / O R D E R Per Dinesh Mohan Sinha, Jm: Captioned Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Passed By The National Faceless Appeal Centre [(In Short “Nfac/Ld. Cit(A)”] Vide Order Dated 09.09.2023, Which In Turn Assessment Order Passed By Assessment Unit, Income Tax Department / Assessing Officer Under Section 143(3) R.W.S. 147 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short “The Act”), Vide Order Dated 04.12.2017. 2. Grounds Of The Appeal Raised By The Assessee Are As Follows: 1. The Learned Commissioner (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi Erred In Upholding Validity Of Assessment U/S 147 By Issue Of Notice U/S 148 Of The Act. 2 The Learned Commissioner (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi Erred In Confirming Action Of Assessing Officer In Making Addition Of Rs. 1,11,13,196/- By Way Of Alleged Difference Between Sales As Per Annual Vat Return & Sales As Per Audited Accounts By Failing To Appreciate That The Alleged Difference Was Duly Reconciled & Explained.

For Appellant: Shri D. M. Rindani, Ld.ARFor Respondent: Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Ld. Sr. DR
Section 139Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 44A