Section 269SS of the Income Tax Act

Income-tax Act, 2025: ss.185, 189

Section 269SS of the Income-tax Act, 1961 corresponds to section 185 (Mode of taking or accepting certain loans, deposits and specified sum) and section 189 (Interpretation) of the Income-tax Act, 2025.

Read section 185 of the 2025 ActRead section 189 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 269SS is Navnitlal C. Javeri v. K.K. Sen (56 ITR 198), cited in 230 of the 1,429 judgments on BharatTax that turn on this section.

Leading authorities on Section 269SS

Navnitlal C. Javeri v. K.K. Sen
56 ITR 198 · 1965 · Supreme Court
230
citing judgments

The Supreme Court holds that circulars issued by the Central Board of Direct Taxes (CBDT) are binding on all officers and persons employed in the execution of the Income-tax Act. These circulars are binding even if they deviate from the provisions of the Act, particularly when issued to relieve hardships.

CIT v. Eli Lily & Co.
312 ITR 225 · 2009 · Supreme Court
221
citing judgments

Section 195 of the Income Tax Act, which mandates tax withholding on payments to non-residents, applies only to sums that are otherwise chargeable to tax under the Act. Tax withholding provisions are not charging provisions.

Keshavji Ravji and Co. v. CIT
82 ITR 913 · 1971 · Supreme Court
209
citing judgments
CIT v. Hissaria Bros.
291 ITR 244 · 2007 · High Court
132
citing judgments

Penalty proceedings for defaults under Sections 269SS and 269T are independent of assessment proceedings; therefore, the limitation period under Section 275(1)(c) for imposing such penalties is not contingent on the completion of appellate quantum proceedings.

Commissioner of Income Tax v. Noida Toll Bridge Co. Ltd.
262 ITR 260 · 2003 · High Court
121
citing judgments

Journal entries for accepting or repaying loans and deposits, without any actual cash transaction, do not violate the provisions of Section 269SS or Section 269T of the Income Tax Act. Consequently, such transactions do not attract penalties under Section 271D or Section 271E.

Commissioner of Income Tax v. Triumph International Finance (I) Ltd.
345 ITR 270 · 2012 · High Court
114
citing judgments

Transactions involving the receipt or repayment of loans or deposits solely through journal entries, without actual cash movement, contravene Sections 269SS and 269T. However, penalties under Sections 271D or 271E for such contraventions are not imposable if the assessee demonstrates a reasonable cause under Section 273B, particularly when no cash has passed between parties.

CIT v. Jai Laxmi Rice Mills
379 ITR 521 · 2015 · Supreme Court
110
citing judgments

The assessing officer must record explicit satisfaction in the assessment order for initiating penalty proceedings under sections like 271D, 271E, 269SS, 269T, or 269ST; a mere recommendation or information to another authority is insufficient to validate the penalty.

CIT v. Anwar Ali
76 ITR 696 · 1970 · Supreme Court
92
citing judgments

Penalty proceedings are separate and distinct from assessment proceedings. A penalty under Section 271(1)(c) is not automatic and cannot be levied mechanically merely because an addition to income has been made.

Principal Commissioner of Income-tax\n(Central)-2 v. Mahesh Wood Products (P.) Ltd.
394 ITR 312 · 2017 · High Court
86
citing judgments

The date of initiation of penalty proceedings for the purpose of Section 275(1)(c) is when the Assessing Officer records a satisfaction or recommends penalty, not the later date when the Joint/Additional Commissioner of Income Tax issues the penalty notice.

CIT v. Hissaria Brothers
386 ITR 719 · 2016 · Supreme Court
68
citing judgments

The relevant date for determining the limitation period under Section 275(1)(c) for passing penalty orders under Sections 271D and 271E is the date of passing the assessment order.

Judgments on Section 269SS

Chiranjjeevi Wind Energy Ltd., Coimbatore vs. ACIT, Corporate Circle-1, Coimbatore

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

ITA 1857/CHNY/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai08 Apr 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 1857/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2017-18 Chiranjjeevi Wind Energy Limited, The Assistant Commissioner 26A, Kamaraj Road, Vs. Of Income Tax, Mahalingapuram, Corporate Circle -1, Pollachi, Coimbatore. Coimbatore – 642 002. Pan: Aaacc 8761H (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : Shri R. Vijayaraghavan, Advocate ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Ms. Anitha, Addl.Cit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 03.04.2025 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 08.04.2025 आदेश /O R D E R Per S.R. Raghunatha: This Appeal Of The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi Dated 22.04.2024 For The Assessment Year 2017-18. 2. At The Outset, We Find That There Is A Delay Of 13 Days In Appeal Filed By The Assessee, For Which Petition For Condonation Of Delay Along With Reasons For Delay Has Been Filed. After Considering The Petition Filed By The Assessee & Also Hearing Both The Parties, We Find That There Is A Reasonable Cause For The Assessee In Not Filing Appeal On Or Before The Due Date Prescribed Under The Law & Thus, In The Interests Of Justice, We Condone Delay In Filing Of Appeal & Admit Appeal Filed By The Assessee For Adjudication.

For Appellant: Shri R. Vijayaraghavan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Anitha, Addl.CIT
Section 269SSection 271D

Shri Rohtash Monga, Ferozepur vs. Assistant Commisioner of Income Tax Circle, Ferozepur

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 286/ASR/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar24 Mar 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Udayan Das Gupta & Shri Krinwant Sahay31Tw? 'Jnftct ^T./Ita No. 286/Asr/2023 Ptyfaui / Assessment Year : 2017-18 Rohtash Monga,' The Acit, Prop. Monga Jewellers, Circle, F.City, Punjab 152002 Ferozepur Wft^Felfh./Pan No: Adqpm0639Q Hitt^/'Respondent 3141 Cl L‘4F/ A P P E 11 A N T ( Hybridhearing ) 3F(T Tt/Assessee By : Shri P.N. Arora, Advocate 'Im'Wcftl 3{R ■$/ Revenue By : Mrs. Neelam Sharma, Sr.Dr ^Hcft^Dt^Wdate Of Hearing 27.12.2024 U 11 Cfrlctt'^Wdate Of Pronouncement 3Ft‘I^T/Order Per Krinwant Sahay, Am: Appeal In This Case Has Been Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 16.09.2023Passed By Id. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (Nfac). Grounds Of Appeal Are As Under: - 2. That Whether The Worthy Cit(A). Nfac Is Right In Confirming 1. The Penalty Levied U/S 271-D For A.Y. 2017-2018 Passed On Dt. 16.9.2023 Which Was Not Initiated With The Assessment Order Passed 30.11.2019 By Ao, Range-1. Ferozepur Keeping In View The Letter Of Offer Surrender Dt. 8.11.2011 In Which It Is Written That Surrender Is Subject To No Penal Action Against The Assessee, Which Was Accepted By The Survey Party As Veil As The A.O. Who Framed The Assessment For A. O. 17-18, If Wrong, Then The Penult Orders May Kindly Be Quashed. \

For Appellant: Shri P.N. Arora, AdvocateFor Respondent: Mrs. Neelam Sharma, Sr.DR
Section 115BSection 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 269SSection 271Section 271A