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

Ajit Anant Joshi, Thane vs. Deputy Commisisoner of Income Tax, Circle 1, Thane

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 700/MUM/2025[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 May 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2010-11 Ajit Anant Joshi Deputy Commissioner Of 22 Parijat Society Kashish Income Tax Park, Thane Check Naka, Circle 1, Qureshi Mansion, Vs. Thane (W), 400604. Gokhale Road, Thane-400602. Pan: Adnpj6782A (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Assessee : Shri. Ambalal Jain, Ca Revenue : Shri. Rajesh Meshram, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 25.03.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 30.05.2025 O R D E R Per Girish Agrawal: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Against The Order Of Commissioner Of Income Tax, Appeal Addl/Jcit (A)-5 Kolkata, Vide Appeal No. Cit(A), Mumbai-40/10078/2016-17 (Manual Appeal Register Number: 8/2016-17) Dated 28.11.2024 Passed Against The Assessment Order By Income Tax Officer 29(1)(1), Mumbai U/S. 143(3) R.W.S. 147 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As The “Act”), Dated 24.02.2016 For Assessment Year 2010-11. 2. Grounds Taken By The Assessee Are Reproduced As Under: “1) On Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Order Passed By Ld. Cit(A) U/S 250 Of The Act Upholding The Order Passed By Ld. A.O. U/S 143(3)/147 Of The Act Is Bad In Law, Void Ab Initio, In Violation Of The Principles Of Natural Justice & Is Liable To Be Quashed.

For Appellant: Shri. Ambalal Jain, CAFor Respondent: Shri. Rajesh Meshram, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 44ASection 69C

Upashan Debnath, Nadia vs. ITO, Ward 41(3), Nadia

The appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 378/KOL/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata21 May 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishrai.T.A. No.378/Kol/2025 Assessment Year: 2015-16 Upashan Debnath……..………………………………………...….……….Appellant Vill. Nagarukhra, P.S.Haringhata, Haringhata, Nadia, West Bengal – 741257. [Pan: Axfpd1830M] Vs. Ito, Ward-41(3), Kolkata.………….....................……........……...…..…..Respondent Appearances By: Shri Somnath Roychowdhury, Ar, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee. Shri Kallol Mistry, Jcit, Sr. Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : May 15, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : May 21, 2025 Order Per Sonjoy Sarma: This Appeal Of The Assessee For The Assessment Year 2017-18 Is Directed Against The Order Dated 18.03.2024 Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Appeals, Addl/Jcit(A)-12, Mumbai [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The ‘Ld. Cit(A)’]. 2. At The Outset, It Is Noted That There Is A Delay Of 266 Days In Filing The Instant Appeal Before The Tribunal. The Assessee Has Submitted An Application For Condonation Of Such Delay Explaining Reasons For The Delay. We, After Perusing The Petition Made In The Application, Satisfy That There Were Bona Fide & Sufficient Reasons For Such Delay. We, Therefore, Condone The Delay & Admit This Appeal For Adjudication. 3. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Is An Individual & Filed His Return Of Income On 11.01.2017 For The Assessment Year 2015- 16 By Declaring Total Income Of Rs.2,59,440/-. Subsequently, The Case Of The Assessee Was Processed U/S 143(1) Of The Act & Selected For

Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 44A