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

Smt. Laxmi Devi Chandwani, Bilaspur vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(1), Bilaspur

In the result, we are inclined to set aside the order of the Ld

ITA 99/RPR/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur15 Sept 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.99/Rpr/2023 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year: 2014-15 Smt. Laxmi Devi Chandwani V Income Tax Officer Agrasen Chowk S Ward-1(1), Bilaspur Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh-495 001. Chhattisgarh-495 001 Pan: Agmpc 8368H (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) .. िनधा"रती क" ओर से /Assessee By : Shri S.R. Rao, Adv. राज"व क" ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Satya Prakash Sharma, Sr. Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date Of Hearing : 21/08/2023 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 15/09/2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Arun Khodpia, Am : The Captioned Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi, Dated 20.02.2023 U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 For Ay 2014-15, Arises From The Order Of Ld. Assessing Officer U/S 271B Of Income Tax Act, 1961 Dated 24.09.2022. The Grounds Of The Appeal Raised By The Assessee Are As Under: “1. That The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) Is Arbitrary, Bad In Law & Facts. 2. That The Ld. Cit(Appeals) Has Erred In Law & Facts In Confirming The Levy Of Penalty U/S 271B Imposed By Learned Assessing Officer.”

For Appellant: Shri S.R. Rao, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Satya Prakash Sharma, Sr. DR
Section 147Section 250Section 271Section 271ASection 271BSection 44A

S A Poultry Farms, Kancheepuram vs. ITO Ward2, Kancheepuram

The appeal stand allowed

ITA 632/CHNY/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai31 Aug 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh, Vp & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.632/Chny/2023 (िनधा)रण वष) / Assessment Year: 2017-18) M/S. S. A. Poultry Farms Ito बनाम 54/11, Vegavathi Nathi Street, Ward-2, / Vs. Kancheepuram-631 501. Kancheepuram. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Abyfs-5320-A (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (" थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant By : None " थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Ms. Deeptha M.S. (Jcit)-Ld.Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 31-08-2023 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 31-08-2023 आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal () 1. Aforesaid Appeal By Assessee For Assessment Year (Ay) 2017-18 Arises Out Of The Order Of Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [Cit(A)] Dated 29-03- 2023 Confirming Penalty U/S 271B For Rs.1.50 Lacs. The Impugned Penalty Has Been Levied By Ld. Ao Vide Order Dated 23-06-2021. At The Time Of Hearing, None Appeared For Assessee. The Ld. Sr. Dr Submitted That Penalty Was Mandatory In Nature & Therefore, The Impugned Order May Be Confirmed. Having Considered Material On Record, The Appeal Is Disposed-Off As Under.

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Ms. Deeptha M.S. (JCIT)-Ld.DR
Section 142(1)Section 271BSection 273BSection 44A

Murugesan Santhi, Chennai vs. ITO, Che-C-(141)(1), Chennai

The appeal stand allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 585/CHNY/2023[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai31 Aug 2023AY 2019-20

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh, Vp & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.585/Chny/2023 (िनधा)रण वष) / Assessment Year: 2019-20) Mrs. Murugesan Santhi Ito बनाम C/O.Somasundaram & Sivaraman Cas, Che-C-141(1), 10,E Block, Kartik Apts, Chennai. / Vs. 46, Vijayaragava Road, Chennai-600 017. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Axlps-0206-N (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (" थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant By : None " थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Ms. Deeptha M.S. (Jcit)-Ld.Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 31-08-2023 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 31-08-2023 आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal () 1. Aforesaid Appeal By Assessee For Assessment Year (Ay) 2019-20 Arises Out Of The Order Of Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [Cit(A)] Dated 15-03- 2023 Confirming Penalty U/S 271B For Rs.1.50 Lacs. The Impugned Penalty Has Been Levied By Ld. Ao Vide Order Dated 24-01-2022. At The Time Of Hearing, None Appeared For Assessee. The Ld. Sr. Dr Submitted That Penalty Was Mandatory In Nature & Therefore, The Impugned Order

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Ms. Deeptha M.S. (JCIT)-Ld.DR
Section 271BSection 273BSection 44A

Nileshkumar Ramlaxman Upadhyay, Surat vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward - 2, Bardoli

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

ITA 172/SRT/2023[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Surat31 Aug 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.171 & 172/Srt/2023 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: (2010-11) (Virtual Court Hearing) Nileshkumar Ramlaxman Income Tax Officer Ward-2 Bardoli, 2Nd Floor, Bsnl Tower, Upadhyay Vs. 123, Bajar Faliyu, Raniamba Main Road, Bardoli-394601 Tapi, Surat-394365 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaopu 5931 C (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" /Respondent) "नधा"रती क" ओर से/ Assessee By : Shri Rakesh R. Shah, Ca राज"व क" ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Vinod Kumar, Sr. Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख/ Date Of Hearing : 07/08/2023 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 31/08/2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Dr. A. L. Saini: Captioned Two Appeals Filed By The Assessee, Pertaining To Same Assessment Year (Ay) 2010-11, Are Directed Against The Separate Orders Passed By The National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (For Short To As “Nfac” / Cit(A), Which In Turn Arise Out Of Separate Penalty Orders Passed By The Assessing Officer U/S 272B R.W.S 271B Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Act”] Dated 11.06.2018 & 13.06.2018 Respectively.

For Appellant: Shri Rakesh R. Shah, CAFor Respondent: Shri Vinod Kumar, Sr. DR
Section 272BSection 44A

Nileshkumar Ramlaxman Upadhyay, Surat vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward - 2, Bardoli

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

ITA 171/SRT/2023[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Surat31 Aug 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.171 & 172/Srt/2023 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: (2010-11) (Virtual Court Hearing) Nileshkumar Ramlaxman Income Tax Officer Ward-2 Bardoli, 2Nd Floor, Bsnl Tower, Upadhyay Vs. 123, Bajar Faliyu, Raniamba Main Road, Bardoli-394601 Tapi, Surat-394365 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaopu 5931 C (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" /Respondent) "नधा"रती क" ओर से/ Assessee By : Shri Rakesh R. Shah, Ca राज"व क" ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Vinod Kumar, Sr. Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख/ Date Of Hearing : 07/08/2023 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 31/08/2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Dr. A. L. Saini: Captioned Two Appeals Filed By The Assessee, Pertaining To Same Assessment Year (Ay) 2010-11, Are Directed Against The Separate Orders Passed By The National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (For Short To As “Nfac” / Cit(A), Which In Turn Arise Out Of Separate Penalty Orders Passed By The Assessing Officer U/S 272B R.W.S 271B Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Act”] Dated 11.06.2018 & 13.06.2018 Respectively.

For Appellant: Shri Rakesh R. Shah, CAFor Respondent: Shri Vinod Kumar, Sr. DR
Section 272BSection 44A