Section 156 of the Income Tax Act

Income-tax Act, 2025: s.289

Section 156 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 corresponds to section 289 (Notice of demand) of the Income-tax Act, 2025.

Read section 289 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 156 is Fatehraj Singhvi v. UOI (73 Taxmann.com 252), cited in 1,778 of the 694 judgments on BharatTax that turn on this section.

Leading authorities on Section 156

Fatehraj Singhvi v. UOI
73 Taxmann.com 252 · 2016 · High Court
1,778
citing judgments

Late fees under section 234E are not applicable for periods prior to June 1, 2015, as the amendment to section 200A inserting clause (c) was effective from that date.

Kourani v. Union OF India
83 Taxmann.com 137 · 2017 · High Court
1,708
citing judgments

The fee under Section 234E for late filing of TDS/TCS statements cannot be levied retrospectively by processing an intimation under Section 200A for defaults occurring before the amendment allowing such processing.

Fateh Raj Singhvi & Ors. v. UOI
289 CTR 602 · 2016 · High Court
844
citing judgments

A fee under Section 234E cannot be levied or adjusted in an intimation under Section 200A for TDS statements pertaining to periods prior to June 1, 2015, as the enabling amendment to Section 200A(1)(c) came into effect only from that date.

Rashmikant Kundalia v. Union of India
54 Taxmann.com 200 · 2015 · High Court
702
citing judgments

Section 234E, levying late fees for delayed filing of TDS statements under section 200(3), is constitutionally valid and constitutes a compensatory fee, not a punitive penalty. Before treating any person as an assessee-in-default, an opportunity of being heard must be provided.

Gajanan Constructions v. DCIT
74 Taxmann.com 6 · 2016 · ITAT
465
citing judgments

Late fees under section 234E can only be levied prospectively from June 1, 2015. Levying late fees for periods prior to this date is not permissible.

Akhil Bhartiya Prathmik Shikshak Sangh Bhawan Trust v. ADIT
115 TTJ 419 · 2008 · ITAT
292
citing judgments

Penalty under Section 272A(1)(d) for non-compliance with a notice issued under Section 142(1) is not leviable when the assessee demonstrates a reasonable cause for such non-compliance. The decision defines what constitutes 'reasonable cause' in this context.

247 ITR 305 (Guj) CIT v. Nestle India Ltd.
140 ITR 832 · 1983 · High Court
172
citing judgments

An employer is not in default under section 201 if they have made a bona fide estimate of employee income and deducted tax at source based on that estimate.

Setty & Others vs. State of Karnataka (7) (1996) 1 SCC 345- Secretary Government of Madras v. P.R. Sriramulu
4 SCC 720 · 2008 · Reported
145
citing judgments

The validity of Section 234E of the Income Tax Act, 1961, inserted by the Finance Act, 2012, is examined by the court.

Rajesh Kourani v. Union of India
297 CTR 502 · 2017 · High Court
97
citing judgments

Section 234E creates a substantive liability to pay late fees for failure to deliver statements under section 200(3) within the prescribed time, effective from July 1, 2012, independent of the recovery mechanism under section 200A(1)(c).

Velu Palandar v. DCIT
83 ITR 683 · 1972 · High Court
94
citing judgments

The opportunity of hearing provided to an assessee must be real, effective, and realistic, not merely notional, and tax authorities are incumbent to decide cases on their merits after affording due opportunity.

Judgments on Section 156

Mr. Varun Srinivasan, Chennai vs. CIT(It), Chennai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 885/CHNY/2026[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 Jul 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Raviआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.885/Chny/2026 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2017-18 Mr. Varun Srinivasan, Vs. The Cit (It), 133, Cholan Street Alwarthirunagar, Chennai. Chennai, 600087, Tamil Nadu. [Pan: Fcjps4295F] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Mr. D. Anand, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Ms. R. Anita, Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 10.06.2026 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 21.07.2026 आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S. Viswanethra Ravi: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 08.01.2026 Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeal), Chennai-16 For The Assessment Year 2017-18. 2. At The Outset, It Was Argued By The Ld. Ar, Mr. D. Anand, Advocate, That The Order Of The Ld. Pcit Under Section 263 Is Not Maintainable In Holding That The Order Dated 08.12.2023 Passed Under Section 270A Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (For Short, "The Act"), Is Erroneous & Prejudicial To The Interest Of The Revenue Due To The Fact That The Ao Has Wrongly

For Appellant: Mr. D. Anand, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. R. Anita, CIT
Section 148Section 156Section 263Section 270ASection 57

Sh. K.Pondurai, Chennai vs. ACIT, Chennai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2179/CHNY/2026[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai29 Jun 2026AY 2012-13

Bench: Honourable Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Gagan Goyalआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 2179/Chny/2026 ननिाारण वर्ा /Assessment Years: 2012-13 Shri K. Pondurai, V. The Assistant Commissioner Of No.3/4-A, Old Mahabalipuram Road, Income Tax, Kelambakkam, Chennai-603 103. Non-Corp Ward-22(1), [Pan: Aaepp8065A] Chennai. (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) अपीलार्थी की ओर से/ Assessee By : Mr. J. Prabhakar, C.A, Ld. Ar प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से /Revenue By : Mr. Chilaka Marthi Vijay Raju, Addl. Cit, Ld. Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 18.06.2026 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 29.06.2026 आदेश / O R D E R Per Gagan Goyal, Am: This Is An Appeal Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (A), Addl. / Jcit (A)-1, (Hereinafter Referred As The ‘Ld. Cit(A)’) Ahmedabad, Dated 20.02.2026, For The Assessment Year (Hereinafter Referred As The ‘Ay’) 2012-13. Grounds Of Appeal 1. The Learned Jcit (A)-1 Ahmedabad Is Not Justified In Dismissing The Appeal In Limine On The Pretext That The Delay In Filing The Appeal Is On Account Of Alleged Indifference On The Part Of The Appellant. 2. The Learned Jcit (A) Failed To Notice That The Demands Raised Qua The Impugned Intimation Came To His Notice Only On The Basis Of A Recovery Notice Showing Unreconciled Outstanding Demand Framed Allegedly Under Section 143(1) Which Was Not Served Upon Him.

For Appellant: Mr. J. Prabhakar, C.A, Ld. ARFor Respondent: Mr. Chilaka Marthi Vijay Raju
Section 143(1)Section 154Section 234BSection 234C