This compilation indexes twelve Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) orders, pronounced between 1 July 2026 and 6 August 2026, in which proceedings under Section 271B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 were directly at issue. The rulings span nine ITAT benches across India — Delhi, Bangalore, Chennai, Hyderabad, Vizag, Mumbai, Ahmedabad, and Surat — and arise from a range of factual contexts including commission agents, private limited companies, cooperative societies, sports clubs, and individual assessees. This page is intended as a structured research index for in-house tax teams, Big-4 associates, and law firm researchers who need to locate and verify primary source material quickly.

Disclaimer: This page is a research index only. Nothing on this page constitutes legal or tax advice. Readers must verify each ruling against the full text of the judgment and should check for any subsequent stays, reversals, or appeals before relying on it for any purpose.

The statutory framework in one paragraph

Section 271B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 provides for the imposition of a penalty where a person required to get his accounts audited under Section 44AB fails to do so before the specified date, or fails to furnish a report of such audit as required under that section. The penalty prescribed is one-half percent of the total sales, turnover, or gross receipts, subject to a ceiling of Rs. 1,50,000. Section 273B provides that no penalty shall be imposed under Section 271B if the person establishes that there was reasonable cause for the failure in question. Proceedings for imposition of the penalty are initiated by the Assessing Officer under Section 274.

The 12 rulings

1. D B Engineering P. Ltd.,Delhi vs ACIT Circle 7(1), Delhi, Delhi

Bench: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Delhi
Date: 6 August 2026
Sections engaged: 139(1), 147, 250, 271B, 273B, 274, 44A
Outcome: Outcome not specified in source
Procedural / substantive ground: The appeal was filed before the Delhi Bench in ITA No. 425/Del/2026 for Assessment Year 2016-17. Per the source preview, the assessment of the assessee company was completed and a notice under Section 274 read with Section 271B was issued alleging that the assessee failed to get its accounts audited or failed to furnish the audit report; the assessee's reply was not found acceptable and a penalty of Rs. 1,50,000 was imposed.

2. Lumen It India Private vs Assessment Unit, Income Tax

Bench: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Bangalore
Date: 30 July 2026
Sections engaged: 143(2), 271B, 274, 44A, 92C(3)(c)
Outcome: Outcome not specified in source
Procedural / substantive ground: The appeal was filed before the Bangalore Bench as IT(TP)A 730/BANG/2026 for Assessment Year 2022-23. Per the source preview, the matter also involved a transfer pricing adjustment, and the order addresses issues including the TP adjustment alongside the penalty proceedings; the dispositive outcome is not discernible from the available preview.

3. Guruvaiah Reddiar Rajamani,Nagercoil vs The Income Tax Officer, Ward -1

Bench: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Chennai
Date: 27 July 2026
Sections engaged: 270A, 271B
Outcome: Outcome not specified in source
Procedural / substantive ground: Two appeals — I.T.A. Nos. 272 & 273/Chny/2026 — were filed by the assessee before the Chennai Bench for Assessment Year 2020-21, directed against separate orders both dated 26.11.2025 passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi. Per the source preview, the issues raised in both appeals were taken up together; the substantive outcome is not discernible from the available preview.

4. Kopperla Patan Anwar Hussain,Kurnool vs ITO, Ward-1, Nandyal

Bench: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Hyderabad
Date: 24 July 2026
Sections engaged: 44A, 271A, 271B
Outcome: Outcome not specified in source
Procedural / substantive ground: Two appeals — ITA 2154/HYD/2025 and ITA 2155/HYD/2025 — were filed before the Hyderabad Bench for Assessment Year 2020-21. Per the source preview, during reassessment proceedings the Assessing Officer accepted the assessee's explanation that he was carrying on business as a commission agent in the sale of agricultural produce; the precise holding on the penalty issue is not discernible from the available preview.

5. Chandrappa Sanjaya Kumar,Shimoga vs ITO Ward 5, Shimoga

Bench: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Bangalore
Date: 21 July 2026
Sections engaged: 271B
Outcome: Outcome not specified in source
Procedural / substantive ground: The appeal was filed before the Bangalore Bench as ITA No. 2279/Bang/2025 for Assessment Year 2018-19, directed against the order of the CIT(A)/NFAC dated 24.9.2025. Per the source preview, the assessee had not filed any return of income for AY 2018-19, and the penalty imposed was quantified at Rs. 98,016, computed at 0.5% of receipts of Rs. 1,96,03,345.

6. Tamil Sports & Recreation vs ITO, Karaikudi

Bench: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Chennai
Date: 16 July 2026
Sections engaged: 271B
Outcome: Outcome not specified in source
Procedural / substantive ground: The appeal was filed before the Chennai Bench as ITA No. 1912/CHNY/2026 for Assessment Year 2023-24, directed against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi dated 24.02.2026 passed under section 250. The source preview confirms the appeal relates to a Section 271B penalty matter; the substantive outcome is not discernible from the available preview.

7. P C Snehal Engineers Private vs DCIT, Circle 3(1)(1), Ahmedabad

Bench: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Ahmedabad
Date: 14 July 2026
Sections engaged: 271B, 92D, 92E
Outcome: Outcome not specified in source
Procedural / substantive ground: Two appeals — ITA Nos. 1173 & 1174/AHD/2026 — were filed before the Ahmedabad Bench for Assessment Year 2014-15, against separate orders of the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi both dated 09.12.2025. Per the source preview, there was a delay of 35 days in filing the appeal, and the assessee filed a condonation application attributing the delay to the heavy workload of the tax advisor; the proceedings also engaged transfer pricing-related provisions alongside the penalty proceedings.

8. Govindram Gouridutta Poddar,Mumbai vs I.T.O Ward 42(1)(2), Mumbai

Bench: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Mumbai
Date: 13 July 2026
Sections engaged: 271B, 44A
Outcome: Outcome not specified in source
Procedural / substantive ground: The appeal was filed before the Mumbai Bench as ITA No. 2697/MUM/2026 for Assessment Year 2023-24, directed against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) / National Faceless Appeal Centre dated 29.01.2026. Per the source preview, the matter was heard by physical hearing; the substantive outcome is not discernible from the available preview.

9. Nandigam Veerabrahmam,Rajahmundry vs The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(1)

Bench: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Vizag
Date: 10 July 2026
Sections engaged: 271B, 44A
Outcome: Outcome not specified in source
Procedural / substantive ground: The appeal was filed before the Visakhapatnam Bench as ITA 199/VIZ/2026 for Assessment Year 2018-19. Per the source preview, the appeal was filed by the assessee against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals); the substantive outcome is not discernible from the available preview.

10. Gouragari Praveen Reddy,Mahabubnagar vs ITO, Ward -1, Mahabubnagar

Bench: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Hyderabad
Date: 8 July 2026
Sections engaged: 270A, 271B
Outcome: Outcome not specified in source
Procedural / substantive ground: Two appeals — I.T.A. No. 438/Hyd/2026 and I.T.A. No. 439/Hyd/2026 — were filed before the Hyderabad 'SMC' Bench for Assessment Year 2017-18. Per the source preview, the captioned appeals were filed by the assessee against the respective orders of the authority below; the substantive outcome is not discernible from the available preview.

11. Amrutbhai Shankarbhai vs ITO, Ward 1(2)(1), Surat

Bench: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Surat
Date: 6 July 2026
Sections engaged: 271(1)(c), 271B
Outcome: Outcome not specified in source
Procedural / substantive ground: Two appeals — ITA Nos. 1359 & 1360/SRT/2025 — were filed before the Surat Bench for Assessment Year 2014-15, against separate appellate orders both dated 27.10.2025 passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi. Per the source preview, one appeal arose from a penalty levied under Section 271(1)(c) and the other from a penalty under Section 271B; the substantive outcome is not discernible from the available preview.

12. Ss75 Salem Dist. Public Health Dept. Emp vs ITO, Ward-1(1), Salem

Bench: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Chennai
Date: 1 July 2026
Sections engaged: 271B
Outcome: Outcome not specified in source
Procedural / substantive ground: The appeal was filed before the Chennai Bench as ITA No. 1441/CHNY/2026 for Assessment Year 2019-20. Per the source preview, there was a delay of 103 days in filing the appeal before the Tribunal and the assessee-society filed an affidavit for condonation of delay; the substantive outcome on the Section 271B penalty is not discernible from the available preview.

Patterns across these 12 rulings

Wide geographic spread of Section 271B litigation. The twelve rulings originate from nine distinct ITAT benches — Delhi, Bangalore (two cases), Chennai (three cases), Hyderabad (two cases), Vizag, Mumbai, Ahmedabad, and Surat — indicating that Section 271B penalty proceedings are a regular feature of appellate dockets across the country, not concentrated in any single jurisdiction.
Section 271B frequently arises alongside other penalty or assessment provisions. Across this set, Section 271B appears in combination with provisions including Section 273B (reasonable cause defence), Section 274 (notice for penalty), Section 271A, Section 271(1)(c), Section 270A, and transfer pricing provisions. This pattern suggests that Section 271B penalties are often one of multiple disputed issues in the same appeal rather than the sole ground.
Delays in filing appeals and condonation applications are a recurring procedural feature. At least two cases in this set — P C Snehal Engineers Private (35-day delay) and Ss75 Salem Dist. Public Health Dept. Emp (103-day delay) — involved formal condonation applications before the merits could be addressed, reflecting a recurring procedural threshold in penalty appeals.
Diverse assessee profiles. The twelve cases involve a private limited company, a transfer-pricing assessee, individuals, a commission agent, a sports and recreation club, a cooperative thrift and credit society, and an engineering firm. This breadth suggests Section 271B proceedings are not confined to any particular category of taxpayer or business type.
Multiple cases routed through NFAC before reaching the ITAT. Several appeals in this set were directed against orders of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) / National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi, confirming that the faceless appeals mechanism is now an established intermediate stage in the Section 271B litigation pathway before matters reach the Tribunal.

How to use this compilation

This compilation is a finding aid, not a substitute for primary research. Each entry identifies the case title, bench, date, sections engaged, and the outcome field as recorded in the TaxNoticeAI structured corpus. Because all twelve rulings in this set carry the outcome designation "Outcome not specified in source," researchers must retrieve and read the full text of each order — available on indiankanoon.org and official ITAT portals — before drawing any conclusion about the actual holding, the relief granted or refused, and the reasoning applied. Text previews in this database are truncated and may not capture the dispositive paragraphs of the order.

Before relying on any ruling identified here, verify that the order has not been subsequently stayed, reversed, remanded, or appealed to a higher forum. High Court writ petitions, Section 260A references, and Supreme Court special leave petitions may alter or nullify a Tribunal order without any amendment to the Tribunal record itself. CBDT circulars and instructions on Section 271B and Section 273B issued after the date of the ruling may also be relevant to how a later bench would approach the same issue.

This index is updated on a rolling basis as new rulings are ingested into the TaxNoticeAI corpus. Researchers tracking a specific bench, assessment year window, or fact pattern should run a targeted search against the full database rather than treating this page as exhaustive for the period covered.

Source

All cases listed above are drawn from the TaxNoticeAI structured legal corpus (16,101 Indian tax judgments, CBIC circulars, ITAT rulings, AAR rulings, GSTAT rulings), sourced from indiankanoon.org and official court portals.

Section 271B Tax Audit Penalty: 12 ITAT Rulings (July–August 2026)