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

Jagannath Banerjee, Bankura vs. JCIT, Range-3, Bankura

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

ITA 1835/KOL/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata04 Oct 2017AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri A. T Varkey, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.1835/Kol/2017 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2011-12 Vs. Jcit, Range-3, Bankura Jagannath Banerjee Mandiha, P.O: Medinipur Gram, Dist: Bankura, Pin-722144 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. : Ajapb 0295 K (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Appellantby : Shri S.M. Surana & D.K. Sen, Adv. Respondent By :Shri Saurabh Kumar, Acit (Dr) सुनवाईक"तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 06/09/2017 घोषणाक"तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 04/10/2017 आदेश / O R D E R Per Dr. Arjun Lal Saini, Am: The Captioned Appeal Filed By The Assessee, Pertaining To Assessment Year 2011-12, Is Directed Against An Order Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals), Durgapur In Appeal No.07/Cit(A)/Dgp/2015-16 Dated, 22.06.2017, Which In Turn Arises Out Of A Penalty Order Passed By The Jt. Cit U/S 271D Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’), Dated 11.03.2015. 2. The Ground Of Appeal Raised By The Assessee Is As Under: “1.For That The Order Passed U/S 271D By The Ld. Joint Commissioner Of Income Tax Is Illegal & Without Jurisdiction As The Order Is Barred By Limitation & Violative Of The Provision Envisaged U/S 271(1)(C) Of The Income Tax Act. 2.For That The Ld. Joint Commissioner Of Income Tax, In Consideration Of The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case, Erred In Imposing Penalty Of Rs.16,00,000/- U/S 271D As He Did Not Dwell Upon The Reasonable Cause Of Failure Stated By The Appellant.

For Appellant: Shri S.M. Surana & D.K. Sen, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Saurabh Kumar, ACIT (DR)
Section 143(3)Section 269SSection 271(1)(c)Section 271DSection 275Section 275(1)Section 275(1)(c)

Keyur Madhusudan Shah, Mumbai vs. Addl CIT RG 14(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is hereby ordered to be allowed

ITA 4565/MUM/2013[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Oct 2017AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri R.C. Sharma, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.4565/Mum/2013 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2007-08) Keyur Madhusudan Shah बिधम/ Addl Cit Rg 14(1) 583, Jagannath Shankarsheth Mumbai Pin: Vs. Rd, Mumbai – 400002 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aahps4084K (अपीलाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. Assessee By: Shri Keyur Shah Revenue By: Shri T. A. Khan ( Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 10.07.2017 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 04.10.2017 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh, Jm: The Assessee Has Filed The Present Appeal Against The Order Dated 09.10.2012 Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-25, Mumbai [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Cit(A)”] Relevant To The A.Y.2007- 08. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds:- “1. The Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals)-25, Mumbai Has Ignored All The Documentary Facts & Evidence Submitted By The Appellant During The Appeal Hearings Including Copies Of All The Bills/Vouchers Of Expenses Aggregating To Rs.9,59,925/- Which Were Also Submitted To Him & Instead Only Relied Upon His Own Interpretation Of The Narration In One Entry In The Ledger Statement.

For Appellant: Shri Keyur ShahFor Respondent: Shri T. A. Khan ( DR)
Section 269SSection 271D