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 CC 7(3), Mumbai vs. M/S Palava Dwellers Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai

ITA 3050/MUM/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Oct 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar () & Shri Ravish Sood () Ita Nos.3050 & 3051/Mum/2019 (Assessment Year: 2014-15 ) D.C.I.T, Cc-7(3), M/S Palava Dwellers Pvt. Ltd. Room No. 655, 6Th Floor, Vs. 412, Vardhman Chambers, Aaykar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Cawasji Patel Street, Mumbai – 400 020 Horniman Circle Fort, Mumbai – 400 001 Pan No. Aabcl1117D (Revenue) (Assessee) Assessee By : Shri Neraj Sheth, A.R Revenue By : Ms. Shreekala Pardeshi, D.R Date Of Hearing : 06/10/2021 Date Of Pronouncement : 11/10/2021 Order Per Ravish Sood, J.M: The Captioned Appeals Filed By The Revenue Are Directed Against The Respective Orders Passed By The Cit(A)-49, Mumbai, Dated 12.02.2019, Which In Turn Arises From The Respective Orders Passed By The Additional Commissioner Of Income Tax, Central Range-7, Mumbai (For Short ―Addl. Cit‖) Under Sec. 271D & Sec. 271E Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (For Short ―Act‖), Dated 29.06.2017 For A.Y. 2014-15. As The Issues Involved In The Aforementioned Appeals Are Interwoven Or In Fact Intertwined, Therefore, The Same Are Being Taken Up & Disposed Off By Way Of A Consolidated Order. The Revenue Has Assailed The Impugned Order On The Following Grounds Before Us: ―1. Whether On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Hon‘Ble Cit(A) Is Justified In Deleting The Penalty Of Rs.1,99,68,616/- U/S 271D Holding That There Was Reasonable Cause U/S 273B For Entering On Transaction To Transaction Basis In The Given Case For The Existence Of Reasonable Cause U/S 273B Which Led To The Exigency Of Contravention Of Provisions Of Sections 269Ss/St.

For Appellant: Shri Neraj Sheth, A.RFor Respondent: Ms. Shreekala Pardeshi, D.R
Section 143(3)Section 269SSection 269TSection 271DSection 271ESection 273B

Mukesh Dahyabhai Patel, Surat vs. Joint Commissioner of Income Tax, Range -3(2), Surat

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 150/SRT/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Surat20 Sept 2021AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.150/Srt/2018 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2010-11) (Virtual Court Hearing) Mukesh Dahyabhai Patel, Vs. The Jcit, Rang-3(2), Prop. Of Mukesh Textiles, P-414-417, Surat. New Gidc, Katargam, Surat-395004. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Abbpp2226M (Assessee) (Respondent) Assessee By : Ms Himali Mistry, Ca Revenue By : Ms Anupama Singhla, Sr. Dr सुनवाईक"तार"ख/ Date Of Hearing : 27/08/2021 घोषणाक"तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 20/09/2021 आदेश / O R D E R Per Dr. A. L. Saini: Captioned Appeal Filed By The Assessee Pertaining To Assessment Year (Ay) 2010-11, Is Directed Against The Order Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals)-3, Surat [In Short “The Ld. Cit(A)”] In Appeal No. Cas/3/453/2015-16 Dated 24.08.2017, Which In Turn Arises Out Of An Assessment Order Passed By The Assessing Officer Under Section 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act 1961, (Hereinafter Referred To As “The Act”). 2. Grounds Of Appeal Raised By The Assessee Are As Follows: “(1) On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & As Per Law, The Learned Cit(A) Erred In Levying Penalty Of Rs.3,22,018/- U/S.271D Of The Act. (2) The Assessee Submits That The Learned Cit(A) Did Not Properly Appreciate The Real Nature Of Transactions & Therefore, Was Not Justified In Confirming The Above Penalty. (3)The Assessee Craves Leave To Add, Alter Or Vary Any Of The Grounds Of Appeal.”

For Appellant: Ms Himali Mistry, CAFor Respondent: Ms Anupama Singhla, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 269SSection 271D