Section 44AB

Section 44AB — the law in short

What the courts have decided on section 44AB, in one screen. Read this first; open an entry when you need the facts, the reasoning and the source.

• Price Waterhouse Coopers Pvt Ltd v CIT Supreme CourtHelps taxpayer
  You forgot to add back something your own audit report flagged. Is that concealment?
  No. It is a bona fide and inadvertent human error — a computation mistake, not concealment or inaccurate particulars. The audit report disclosed the item, so nothing was hidden, and the penalty was deleted.
• Sahara India (Firm) v CIT Supreme CourtCuts both ways
  The AO ordered a special audit of my books without hearing me first. Is that direction valid?
  No. A direction under s.142(2A) carries serious civil consequences, so the assessee must be given a reasonable opportunity of being heard before it is issued, even though the section as it then stood said nothing about a hearing. The post-audit hearing under s.142(3) is no substitute, because it reaches only the audit material and not the validity of the direction.
• T.D. Venkata Rao v Union of India Supreme CourtHelps department
  I am a registered income-tax practitioner under s.288(2). Can I sign a tax audit report?
  No. Being an authorised representative under s.288(2) carries no right to conduct the compulsory audit under s.44AB. Confining that work to chartered accountants rests on their training and special aptitude in audits, which is an intelligible differentia with a rational nexus to the object of the section, so it survives Article 14, and it is a reasonable restriction under Article 19(6) because the practitioner's own profession is left untouched.
• Ankit Agarwal v PCCIT High CourtHelps taxpayerValidity unconfirmed
  My 148A notice says I never filed a return, but I did. Is that enough to get it quashed?
  Yes, on these facts. The Patna High Court held that where the Insight Portal flag is contradicted by the Department's own records, the 'information which suggests' escapement is missing and the s.148A(b) notice, the s.148A(d) order, the s.148 notice and the demand all fall.
• Chavakkad Service Co-operative Bank v ITO High CourtHelps taxpayerValidity unconfirmed
  Our audit report was late because the statutory auditor was late. Can the officer still levy the s.271B penalty?
  No, where the delay is genuinely the auditor's and the report reaches the officer before the assessment is completed. The Kerala High Court set aside penalties of Rs 1.5 lakh, holding that s.273B is peremptory: no penalty can be imposed under s.271B if the assessee proves reasonable cause, and a co-operative society has no control over the timetable of the statutory auditor appointed under the State co-operative law.
• Surajmal Parsuram Todi v CIT High CourtHelps taxpayer
  I never maintained books of account at all. Can the department penalise me under section 271B for not getting them audited?
  No. The Gauhati High Court held that where an assessee has not maintained books of account at all, penalty under section 271B for failure to get them audited cannot be imposed. Maintenance of accounts is required by section 44AA, and failure there is punished by section 271A. Once that default is complete there is nothing to audit, so no failure under section 44AB can arise and section 271B has nothing to bite on. The Tribunal had overlooked this. The question was answered in the negative and in favour of the assessee, leaving the department to act under section 271A.
• TSC Fashions Pvt Ltd v ITO ITATHelps departmentValidity unconfirmed
  My client missed the tax audit because the old auditor stopped cooperating. Is that a reasonable cause that kills the s.271B penalty?
  Not on assertion alone. The Tribunal confirmed the penalty because the assessee produced no correspondence, email, letter, complaint or affidavit against the earlier auditor, and showed no proactive steps of its own; a bald plea of auditor non-cooperation is a mere allegation and does not discharge the burden under s.273B.
• Calories Count v DCIT ITATCuts both waysValidity unconfirmed
  The officer has rejected my books and worked out a much higher turnover from material impounded in a survey. If he does that, does he still have to apply the presumptive rate?
  On these facts, yes. The Tribunal upheld the Assessing Officer's determination of gross sales at Rs 1.87 crore against the Rs 87.34 lakh disclosed, but directed that the business profit be computed at 8 per cent of the redetermined turnover instead of the Rs 1.45 crore the officer had assessed.
• Bright Singh Chelladurai v ITO ITATHelps taxpayerHigh Courts differ
  The officer penalised my client Rs 25,000 under s.271A for not keeping books and then another Rs 1,50,000 under s.271B for not getting them audited. Can he do both for the same year?
  No. Having levied the s.271A penalty for not maintaining books under s.44AA, the officer ought not to have levied a s.271B penalty as well — if no books were kept there was nothing to audit, so s.44AB was not violated. The Tribunal deleted the s.271B penalty and left the s.271A penalty standing.
• Haresh Ghanshyamdas Makhija v ITO ITATHelps taxpayer
  They already penalised me under 271A for keeping no books. Can they levy 271B on top?
  No. Once penalty has been levied under s.271A for non-maintenance of books, a further penalty under s.271B for failure to audit those books cannot stand — the department cannot assert a failure to audit books it has itself found not to exist. The same consolidated order deletes a separate concealment penalty under s.271(1)(c) on the footing that the officer accepted the return and assessed the identical income, so there was nothing concealed.
• Gunita Pradeep Kapur v ITO ITATHelps taxpayerValidity unconfirmed
  I trade in futures and options. The officer has disallowed my loss because I did not get a tax audit and has brought s.44AD into it. Does s.44AD apply to derivative trading at all?
  The Tribunal held that s.44AD cannot be a reference point where the profit or loss arises from derivatives, futures and options in shares or commodities, because the section deals with regular business in the retail of goods, and that reliance on it by the authorities below was misplaced. The loss of Rs 35,81,745 was allowed, the absence of a tax audit not being a ground to disallow the claim.
• Lokesh Kumar Sharma v ITO ITATHelps taxpayerValidity unconfirmed
  I never maintained books at all. Can they penalise me under 271B for not getting them audited?
  No. Section 44AB requires a person to get 'his accounts' audited, which presupposes that accounts exist. Where the default is at the earlier stage of not maintaining books under s.44AA, the audit obligation never arises, and the penalty for that default is s.271A — not s.271B.
• Yuvraj Singh v ITO ITATHelps taxpayerValidity unconfirmed
  The officer treated my cash deposits as turnover, said I crossed the s.44AB limit and levied s.271B. The quantum was settled under Vivad se Vishwas. Does the penalty still stand?
  No. Where the assessee's declared turnover was below the s.44AB threshold and the officer crossed the threshold only by adding cash deposits to it, and the quantum dispute ended under the Vivad se Vishwas Scheme 2020 without any final judicial finding on the correctness of the turnover, the benefit of the doubt goes to the assessee and the s.271B penalty is reversed.
• Somnath Ghosh v ITO ITATHelps taxpayerValidity unconfirmed
  I kept no books at all. Can they penalise me under 271B for not getting the accounts audited?
  No. Where no books of account exist there is nothing capable of being audited, so s.271B is not attracted. The default, if any, is non-maintenance of books, which is dealt with by s.271A.
• Banwari Sitaram Pasari HUF v ACIT ITATHelps taxpayerSuperseded by amendment
  The officer has added up my whole commodity contract value as turnover and penalised me under s.271B. Is contract value turnover?
  No. Where the assessee buys and sells commodities on a commodity exchange without delivery being taken or given, the total value of the transactions booked with the exchange cannot be treated as turnover for deciding whether accounts had to be audited under s.44AB. The transactions were speculative, no delivery took place, and the s.271B penalty was deleted.
• Statutory position — s.44AB, provisos to clause (a): the Rs 10 crore threshold and the 5 per cent cash test CBDT Circulars & InstructionsCuts both waysValidity unconfirmed
  My client's turnover is Rs 6 crore and almost everything moves through the bank. Is he outside tax audit, and what counts as 'cash' for the 5 per cent test?
  The Rs 1 crore threshold in s.44AB(a) is replaced by Rs 10 crore only where BOTH tests are met — cash receipts do not exceed 5 per cent of all amounts received, and cash payments do not exceed 5 per cent of all payments made. For that purpose the statute itself deems a payment or receipt by a cheque or bank draft which is not account payee to be a payment or receipt in cash.
• Statutory position — s.44AA(2): who must keep books of account, and the thresholds CBDT Circulars & InstructionsCuts both waysValidity unconfirmed
  My client runs a small business, not a notified profession. At what point is he obliged to keep books at all, and what are the current figures?
  For a business or a non-specified profession, books must be kept if income from the business or profession exceeds Rs 1,20,000 OR total sales, turnover or gross receipts exceed Rs 10,00,000 in any one of the three years immediately preceding the previous year. For an individual or a Hindu undivided family two provisos raise those figures to Rs 2,50,000 and Rs 25,00,000 respectively.
• Income Tax Dept presumptive taxation tutorial CBDT Circulars & InstructionsCuts both ways
  What are the current 44AD, 44ADA and 44AB limits, and what does the 5% cash test mean?
  For AY 2024-25 onwards: s.44AD applies up to Rs. 2 crore turnover, or Rs. 3 crore where cash receipts are within 5%, at 8% (6% for receipts by account payee cheque or draft or electronic mode); s.44ADA up to Rs. 50 lakh, or Rs. 75 lakh on the same condition, at 50%. Audit under s.44AB is triggered at Rs. 1 crore turnover for business, Rs. 10 crore where cash receipts and cash payments are each within 5%, and Rs. 50 lakh gross receipts for a profession. The 5% cash cap is the same thing as routing more than 95% of transactions through banking channels.

Listed strongest first: Supreme Court, then High Court, then Tribunal, then CBDT. Nothing here has yet been read in full by a chartered accountant — open an entry to see where it came from.