Section 271E of the Income Tax Act

Income-tax Act, 2025: s.453

Section 271E of the Income-tax Act, 1961 corresponds to section 453 (Penalty for failure to comply with provisions of section 188) of the Income-tax Act, 2025.

Read section 453 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 271E is Navnitlal C. Javeri v. K.K. Sen (56 ITR 198), cited in 230 of the 968 judgments on BharatTax that turn on this section.

Leading authorities on Section 271E

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.

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.

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. Sunil Kumar Goel
315 ITR 163 · 2009 · High Court
75
citing judgments

A genuine personal transaction or a non-returnable transfer between family members or related entities does not constitute a 'loan' or 'deposit' under Section 269SS, and therefore, no penalty can be levied under Section 271D.

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.

Asst. Director of Inspection (Investigation) v. Kum. A.B. Shanthi
255 ITR 258 · 2002 · Supreme Court
61
citing judgments

The Supreme Court upholds the constitutional validity of Section 269SS of the Income Tax Act, 1961, which prohibits certain cash loans and deposits. This ruling is foundational for penalties under Section 271D and considering exemptions under Section 273B.

Judgments on Section 271E

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