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

DCIT, Central Circle 3, New Delhi vs. Harish Kumar Agrawal, Uttar Pradesh

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 8900/DEL/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi05 Aug 2026AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Sanjay Awasthiassessment Year: 2020-21 Dcit, Vs. Harish Kumar Agrawal, Central Circle-3, Room No.333, House No.Hka-1, Gali No.3, Arya E-2, Ara Centre, Nagar, Mathura Road, Kosi Kalan, Jhandewalan Extension, Mathura, Uttar Pradesh 281403. New Delhi, Delhi 110055. Pan No. Aawpa1906F Appellant Respondent Assessee By Shri M.M. Agarwal, Ca Revenue By Shri Jitender Singh, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing: 14.07.2026 Pronouncement On 05.08.2026 O R D E R Per Sanjay Awasthi: 1. This Appeal Arises From Order Of Ld.Cit(A), Delhi-23, U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereafter As “The Act”), Order Dated 28.10.2025. 1.1 In This Case, The Facts In Brief Are That Owning To A Search Conducted On 17.08.2020 In The Case Of Pranjil Batra Group, The Ld. Ao Made An Addition Of Rs.86.50 Lakhs Towards Undisclosed Consideration With Respect To Property On The Basis Of Certain Papers Found During The Course Of The Said Search. It Was Held That The Assessee Had Received The Amount Of Rs.86.50 Lakhs In Cash & Thereby It Was Held That This Was Violative Of The Provision Of Section 269Ss Of The Act. Thereafter, The Ld. Ao Imposed A Penalty U/S 271D Of The Act On The Like Amount. 1 Harish Kumar Agrawal 1.2 The Aggrieved Assessee Approached The Ld.Cit(A) Where He Could Succeed On The Basis Of The Finding That In The Quantum Matter The Itat In The Assessee’S Own Case [Ita 5652/Del/2024, Order Dated 03.06.2025], Had Observed As Under: -

Section 153CSection 250Section 269SSection 271DSection 271ESection 275

S 778 R Pattanam Paccs Ltd., Namakkal vs. ITO, Ward No.2, Namakkal

ITA 4124/CHNY/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai23 Jul 2026AY 2020-21

Bench: Honourable George George K. & Shri Gagan Goyalआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 4124/Chny/2025 ननिाजरण वर्ज /Assessment Years: 2020-21 S 778 R Pattanam Primary Agricultural V. Income Tax Officer, Cooperative Credit Society Limited. Ward-2, No.52/13, North Street, Pattanam, Namakkal. Pattanam Po, Rasipuram, Namakkal, Tamil Nadu-637 508. [Pan: Aagas5452B] (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) अपीलार्थी की ओर से/ Assessee By : Mr. V. Sreeraman, C.A (Virtual), Ld. Ar प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से /Revenue By : Mr. Beesam Narasing Rao, Jcit Ld. Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 25.06.2026 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 23.07.2026 आदेश / O R D E R Per Gagan Goyal, Am: This Is An Appeal Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (A) / Nfac (Hereinafter Referred As The ‘Ld.Cit(A)’), Delhi Dated 07.10.2025 For The Assessment Year (Hereinafter Referred As The ‘Ay’) 2020-21. Grounds Of Appeal 1. The Appellant Has Preferred This Appeal Against The Addition Made By Ao & Sustained By The Appellate Authority To The Extent Of ₹ 8, 60,000. This Amount As Arrived At By The Ao Is The Difference Between The Balance Under The Head "Borrowings From Others (Schedule 7)" Forming Part Of "Deposits & Borrowings" In The Balance Sheet As At 31 March 2020 & 31 March 2019 As Indicated Below- Particulars 31.3.2020 31.3.2019 S.778 R Pattanam Paccs Ltd.

For Appellant: Mr. V. Sreeraman, C.A (Virtual)For Respondent: Mr. Beesam Narasing Rao, JCIT
Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 269SSection 68