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

Arup Kumar Hazra, Midnapore vs. I.T.O. Ward - 39(2), Midnapore

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2385/KOL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata04 May 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Sri J. Sudhakar Reddy] I.T.A. No. 2385/Kol/2017 Assessment Year: 2012-13 Arup Kumar Hazra…………….……………………………………..……..…………………………….. Appellant C/O. S.N. Ghosh & Associates, Advocates Seben Brothers’ Lodge P.O. Buroshibtala Chinsurah Dist. Hooghly Pin – 712 105 [Pan : Aorph 9261 R] I.T.O. Ward-39(2), Midnapore..…………….…………………………………………….…….. Respondent Income Tax Office Sahoo Bhawan Khudiram Nagar P.O. Midnapore Dist. Midnapore (W) Pin – 721 101 Appearances By: Shri Somnath Ghosh, Advocate, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee. Shri Pinaki Mukherjee, Addl. Cit, Sr. Dr, Appearing On Behalf Of The Revenue Date Of Concluding The Hearing : April 19Th, 2018 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : May 4Th, 2018 O R D E R Per J. Sudhakar Reddy :- This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Directed Against The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-11, Kolkata, (Hereinafter The ‘Ld. Cit(A)’), Dt. 22/09/2017, Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter The ‘Act’), Relating To Assessment Year 2012-13. 2. The Assessee Is An Individual & Is A Dealer In Liquefied Petroleum Gas Of Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. He Has A Proprietary Concern Under The Name & Style Of M/S. Paul Service Station. He Filed His Return Of Income On 29Th September, 2012, Disclosing Total Income At Rs.6,74,512/-. The Assessing Officer Completed The Assessment U/S 143(3) Of The Act, By Determining The Total Income Of The Assessee At Rs.38,66,460/-, Interalia Making Addition On Account Of Concealed Investment, Alleged Gross Profit Earned On Commission On Estimate Basis, Violation Of Provision Of Section 269Ss Of The Act, Etc. The Assessee Carried The Matter In Appeal.

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 269SSection 44A

M/S Eastern Track Udyog Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. JCIT, Range 5, Kolkata

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee (in ITA No

ITA 1691/KOL/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata31 Jan 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.1690& 1691/Kol/2016 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: 2010-11) M/S Eastern Track Udyog Vs. Jcit, Range-5, Kolkata Pvt. Ltd. Aayakar Bhawan, P-7, 41, N.S. Road, Kolkata – 1. Chowringhee Square, Kolkata – 69. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. : Aabce 4959 Q (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Appellant By :Shri Subash Agarwal, Advocate Respondent By :Shris. Dasgupta, Addl. Cit(Dr) सुनवाईकीतारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 07/12/2017 घोषणाकीतारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 31/01/2018 आदेश / O R D E R Per Dr. Arjun Lal Saini, Am: The Captioned Twoappeals Filed By The Assessee, Pertaining To A.Y 2010-11,Are Directed Against The Orderspassed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals)-2, Kolkata,Which In Turn Arise Out Of Penalty Orders Passed By The Assessing Officerunder Sections271E & 271Dof The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’). 2. Since These Two Appeals Relate To The Same Assessee, Same Assessment Year & Identical Issues Are Involved, Therefore, These Have Clubbed & Heard Together & A Consolidated Order Is Being Passed For The Sake Of Brevity & Convenience. 3. The Assessee’S Appeal In Ita No.1690/Kol/2016, For A.Y.2010-11, Is Taken As The Lead Case. The Grounds Of Appeal Raised By The Assessee In The Lead Case Reads As Under: “1. For That The Ld.Cit(A) Ought To Have Quashed The Order Of Penalty U/S 271E Passed By The Ld. Ao As It Was Barred By Limitation As Per The Provision Of Sec. 275(1)(C).

For Appellant: Shri Subash Agarwal, AdvocateFor Respondent: ShriS. Dasgupta, Addl. CIT(DR)
Section 143(3)Section 269SSection 269TSection 271ESection 275(1)(c)

M/S Eastern Track Udyog Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. JCIT, Range 25, Kolkata

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee (in ITA No

ITA 1690/KOL/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata31 Jan 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.1690& 1691/Kol/2016 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: 2010-11) M/S Eastern Track Udyog Vs. Jcit, Range-5, Kolkata Pvt. Ltd. Aayakar Bhawan, P-7, 41, N.S. Road, Kolkata – 1. Chowringhee Square, Kolkata – 69. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. : Aabce 4959 Q (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Appellant By :Shri Subash Agarwal, Advocate Respondent By :Shris. Dasgupta, Addl. Cit(Dr) सुनवाईकीतारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 07/12/2017 घोषणाकीतारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 31/01/2018 आदेश / O R D E R Per Dr. Arjun Lal Saini, Am: The Captioned Twoappeals Filed By The Assessee, Pertaining To A.Y 2010-11,Are Directed Against The Orderspassed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals)-2, Kolkata,Which In Turn Arise Out Of Penalty Orders Passed By The Assessing Officerunder Sections271E & 271Dof The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’). 2. Since These Two Appeals Relate To The Same Assessee, Same Assessment Year & Identical Issues Are Involved, Therefore, These Have Clubbed & Heard Together & A Consolidated Order Is Being Passed For The Sake Of Brevity & Convenience. 3. The Assessee’S Appeal In Ita No.1690/Kol/2016, For A.Y.2010-11, Is Taken As The Lead Case. The Grounds Of Appeal Raised By The Assessee In The Lead Case Reads As Under: “1. For That The Ld.Cit(A) Ought To Have Quashed The Order Of Penalty U/S 271E Passed By The Ld. Ao As It Was Barred By Limitation As Per The Provision Of Sec. 275(1)(C).

For Appellant: Shri Subash Agarwal, AdvocateFor Respondent: ShriS. Dasgupta, Addl. CIT(DR)
Section 143(3)Section 269SSection 269TSection 271ESection 275(1)(c)