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

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)

Arabrish Chowbey, Kolkata vs. ACIT, R-26, Kolkata

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

ITA 346/KOL/2016[2005-2006]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata25 Jan 2018AY 2005-2006

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.346/Kol/2016 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2005-06 Ambrish Chowbey Vs. Acit, Rg-26, Kolkata Flat No.1C, Merlin Laurel 169, Ajc Bose Road, Garden, 71, Nrisingha Dutta Kolkata – 700014. Road, Behala, Kol – 8. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. : Acupc 5847 P (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Appellant By :Shri D.K. Saha, Fca Respondent By :Shri Soumyajit Dasgupta, Addl. Cit सुनवाईकीतारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 22/11/2017 घोषणाकीतारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 25/01/2018 आदेश / O R D E R Per Dr. Arjun Lal Saini, Am: The Captioned Appeal Filed By The Assessee, Pertaining To Assessment Year 2005-06, Is Directed Against An Order Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals)-17, Kolkata, In Appeal No.113/Cit(A)-17/Kol, Dated 30.11.2015, Which In Turn Arises Out Of Penalty Order Passed By The Assessing Officer U/S271E Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’), Dated 30.05.2008. 2.The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal: “I) That The Order Of Ao Has Been Set Aside By Hon’Ble Itat Kolkata With The Directive To Re-Adjudicate The Same, Giving Due Opportunity To The Assessee To Produce Relevant Evidences. Ii) That The Revised Order Passed By The Ld. Ao In Deference To The Order Of Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Shri D.K. Saha, FCAFor Respondent: Shri Soumyajit Dasgupta, Addl. CIT
Section 269TSection 271(1)(C)Section 271E

Sri Nikhil Banik Mazumder, Howrah vs. JCIT, R-46, Kolkata

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

ITA 454/KOL/2016[2010-2011]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata10 Jan 2018AY 2010-2011

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.453 & 454/Kol/2016 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2010-11) Vs. Jcit, Range-46, Kolkata. Sri Nikhil Banik Mazumder 72/2, Dharmatala Road, Ghusuri, Howrah – 3, Government Place(West), Kolkata -1. 711107. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. :Ahspm 1397 B (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Appellantby : Shri Subhas Agarwal, Advocate Respondent By :Shri Arindam Bhattacharjee, Addl. Cit सुनवाईकीतारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 11/10/2017 घोषणाकीतारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 10/01/2018 आदेश / O R D E R Per Dr. Arjun Lal Saini, Am: These Captioned Two Appeals Filed By The Assessee, Pertaining To Assessment Year 2010-11,Aredirected Against The Orders Passed By The Ld Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-14,Kolkata,In Appeal No.205& 206/Cit(A)- 14/Wd-47(4)/2013-14, Bothdated 22.01.2016,Which In Turn Arise Out Of Penalty Orders Passed By The Assessing Officer Under Sections271D & 271Eof The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’), Both Dated 23.09.2013. 2. Since These Two Appeals Relate To The Same Assessee, Same Assessment Year, Identical Issues Are Involved, Therefore, These Have Been Clubbed & Heard Together & A Consolidated Order Is Being Passed For The Sake Of Convenience & Brevity. The Assessee’S Appeal In Ita No.453/Kol/2016, For A.Y.2010-11, Has Taken As The Lead Case. 3.The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal (In Lead Case In Ita No.453/Kol/2016), As Follows:

For Appellant: Shri Subhas Agarwal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Arindam Bhattacharjee, Addl. CIT
Section 143(3)Section 269SSection 269TSection 271DSection 271ESection 273B