ITAT Quashes Rs. 1.50 Lakh Penalty Where No Books of Account Were Maintained:

ITAT Quashes Rs. 1.50 Lakh Penalty Where No Books of Account Were Maintained

The Tribunal held that Section 271B presupposes the existence of books of account which are required to be audited under Section 44AB.

ITAT: No Section 271B Penalty If Books of Account Were Never Maintained

authorMeetu KumaridateJan 23, 2026
Last update on Jan 23, 2026
ITAT Quashes Rs. 1.50 Lakh Penalty Where No Books of Account Were Maintained The assessee, engaged in contract business, filed his return of income for AY 2017-18, declaring a total income of Rs. 60.48 lakh. The return was accepted in scrutiny assessment under Section 143(3) without any addition. The Assessing Officer initiated penalty proceedings under Section 271B, alleging failure to furnish a tax audit report under Section 44AB and levied a penalty of Rs. 1.50 lakh.
NFRA Cracks Down on Audit File Lapses: 60-Day Completion Rule, 7-Day Submission Deadline, Many More
The assessee contended that he had not maintained any books of account and, therefore, the question of audit did not arise. He also explained that the “audit yes” entry in the return was an inadvertent and erroneous tick. The CIT(A) dismissed the appeal and upheld the penalty, leading the assessee to approach the Tribunal. Main Issue: Whether penalty under Section 271B can be levied for non-furnishing of a tax audit report when the assessee admittedly did not maintain books of account.
NFRA Cracks Down on Audit File Lapses: 60-Day Completion Rule, 7-Day Submission Deadline, Many More
ITAT's Order: The Tribunal allowed the assessee’s appeal and deleted the penalty. The Tribunal held that Section 271B presupposes the existence of books of account which are required to be audited under Section 44AB. Relying on Surajmal Parsuram Todi, the Tribunal ruled that once the offence of non-maintenance of books is complete, there can be no further offence of failure to get such non-existent books audited. As the assessee had stated that no accounts were maintained, the penalty under Section 271B was held to be unsustainable. To Read Full Judgment, Download PDF Given Below

About Author

Meetu Kumari

Content Manager

Meetu Kumari is an Experienced Advocate and Content Writer with 4+ years of demonstrated history of working in the law practice industry. Skilled in Developing Content, Researching, and Drafting. Strong professional with a Bachelor of Science (B.Sc.) focused on Law from Gujarat National Law University.
Studycafe
Jodhpur, Rajasthan, India
2163
Up Next

Loading suggestions…