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

Saroj Kumar Sahoo, Jajpur vs. DCIT, Cuttack

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 344/CTK/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack14 Oct 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Manish Agarwalआयकर अपील संसंसंसं/Ita No.344/Ctk/2024 (िनधा"रण िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण वष" वष" / Assessment Year : 2016-2017) वष" Saroj Kumar Sahoo, Vs Dcit, Cuttack Kuakhia, Rasulpur, Jajpur, Odisha Pan No. :Actps 8529 H (अपीलाथ" अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" ""यथ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ" अपीलाथ" ""यथ" ""यथ" .. िनधा"रती िनधा"रती क" िनधा"रती िनधा"रती क" क" ओर क" ओर ओर सेसेसेसे /Assessee By ओर : Shri Chitta Ranjan Sahoo, Advocate राज"व राज"व क" राज"व राज"व क" क" ओर क" ओर ओर सेसेसेसे /Revenue By ओर : Shri S.C.Mohanty, Sr.Dr सुनवाई क" तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 14/10/2024 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 14/10/2024 आदेश / O R D E R आदेश आदेश आदेश Per Bench : This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi, Dated 15.07.2024, Passed In Din & Order No.Itba/Nfac/S/250/2024- 25/1066716205(1) For The Assessment Year 2016-2017, On The Following Grounds Of Appeal :- 1. That The Learned A.O. Should Not Have Imposed Penalty Of Rs.1,50,000.00 As The Assessee Had Sufficient Cause Of Non Filling & Could Not Upload The Return In Due Time. Ignoring The Explanation Of The Assessee, The Ld.Ao Passed The Order In A Hurried Manner Which Is Not Justified In The Eye Of Law.

Section 139(1)Section 271BSection 44A

Premier Irrigation Adritee Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. D.C.I.T., Circle - 11(1), Kolkata

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

ITA 1521/KOL/2024[2020-2021]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata25 Sept 2024AY 2020-2021

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Sanjay Awasthii.T.A. No.1521/Kol/2024 Assessment Year: 2020-21 Premier Irrigation Adritee Pvt. Ltd. ....…………….......…....………....Appellant 17/1C, Alipore Road, Niharika, Kolkata-700027. [Pan: Aafcm4800Q] Vs. Dcit, Circle-11(1), Kolkata......................................................…..…..... Respondent Appearances By: Shri A. K. Tibrewal, Ar, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri P. P. Barman, Addl. Cit, Sr. Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : September 25, 2024 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : September 25, 2024 आदेश / Order संजय गग", "या"यक सद"य "वारा / Per Sanjay Garg: The Present Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 09.01.2024 Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Cit(A)’] Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’). 2. The Assessee In This Appeal Has Taken The Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1. That The Impugned Order Passed By Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Nfac Summarily Dismissing The Appeal Of The Appellant Assessee Company For Alleged Non-Compliance Of The Notices Is Against Law & Facts Of The Case Since He Did Not Adjudicate Each Of The Grounds Of Appeal The Facts For Which Were Available To Him In The Assessment Order Passed By Ld. Assessing Officer & The Statement Of Facts Filed By The Appellant Assessee. 2. That The Impugned Order Passed By Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) On 9H January 2024 Dismissing The Appeal Of The Appellant

Section 139(1)Section 234ASection 234BSection 234CSection 250Section 36(1)(va)Section 43BSection 44A

Sharadchandra Dattatray Mulik, Kolhapur vs. ITO, Ward 1(3), Kolhapur

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed

ITA 619/PUN/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune20 Sept 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.619/Pun/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18 Sharadchandra Dattatray Vs. Ito, Ward-1(3), Mulik, Kolhapur. Dattaashila Agencies, Gargoti Road, At Post Uttur, Tal. Ajra, Kolhapur- 416220. Pan : Aghpm1855G Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Pramod S. Shingte Revenue By : Shri Sourabh Nayak Date Of Hearing : 26.06.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 20.09.2024 आदेश / Order Per Vinay Bhamore, Jm: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 27.12.2023 Passed By Ld Cit(A)/Nfac For The Assessment Year 2017-18. 2. The Appellant Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal :- “On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case & In Law The Learned Assessing Officer Erred In Levying The Penalty U/S 271B A Sum Of Rs.1,50,000 Without Appreciating The Reasonable Circumstances Under Which Appellant Was Not Able To Get His Account Audited, As The Appointed Ca Has Discontinued The Audit Without An Intimation & Not Issued The Tax Audit Report, Under Such Circumstances Your Appellant Prays For Deletion Of Penalty.

For Appellant: Shri Pramod S. ShingteFor Respondent: Shri Sourabh Nayak
Section 119Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 144(1)(b)Section 271BSection 44A