Section 273B of the Income Tax Act

Income-tax Act, 2025: s.470

Section 273B of the Income-tax Act, 1961 corresponds to section 470 (Penalty not to be imposed in certain cases) of the Income-tax Act, 2025.

Read section 470 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 273B is Ashok Pai v. CIT (292 ITR 11), cited in 812 of the 2,226 judgments on BharatTax that turn on this section.

Leading authorities on Section 273B

Ashok Pai v. CIT
292 ITR 11 · 2007 · Supreme Court
812
citing judgments

“Concealment of particulars of income” and “furnishing inaccurate particulars of income” are two distinct offences under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act. A penalty cannot be levied under one limb if the show cause notice or basis for penalty specifies the other, as this constitutes a complete variance in the reasons for assuming jurisdiction.

Hindustan Steel Ltd. v. State of Orissa
83 ITR 26 · 1972 · Supreme Court
502
citing judgments

An order imposing penalty for failure to carry out a statutory obligation results from quasi-criminal proceedings. Penalty is not ordinarily imposed unless the party acted deliberately in defiance of law, was guilty of contumacious or dishonest conduct, or acted in conscious disregard of their obligation.

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.

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. S.K. Gupta & Co.
322 ITR 86 · 2010 · High Court
110
citing judgments

If a penalty is levied under Section 271A for failure to maintain books of account, then a separate penalty under Section 271B for failure to get accounts audited under Section 44AB cannot also be levied.

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. NHK Japan Broadcasting Corporation
305 ITR 137 · 2008 · High Court
96
citing judgments

When no specific statutory period of limitation exists, proceedings under Section 201(1) and 201(1A) of the Income-tax Act, particularly for payments to non-residents, must be initiated within a reasonable period of four years. This limitation also applies to consequential penalty proceedings under Section 271C.

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.

Azadi Bachao Andolan v. Union of India
252 ITR 471 · 2001 · High Court
57
citing judgments

A penalty under sections like 271D or 271E is not automatically imposed if the assessee proves there was a reasonable cause for the failure. The interpretation of 'reasonable cause' is that which would prevent a person of average intelligence and ordinary prudence from acting negligently or in bad faith.

Judgments on Section 273B

Arvindbhai Punabhai Patel, Ahmedabad vs. The ITO, Ward-3(3)(1), Ahmedabad

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 1851/AHD/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad14 Feb 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokarआयकर अपील सं /Ita No.1851/Ahd/2024 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2015-16 Arvindbhai Punabhai Patel The Ito बनाम/ 306, Mangaljoyt Ward-3(3)(1) V/S. Jodhpur Road, Ahmedabad – 380 015 Jodhpur 4 Rasta S.O., Ahmedabad – 380 015 "थायी लेखा सं./Pan: Aggpp 5322 A (अपीलाथ&/ Appellant) ('( यथ&/ Respondent) Assessee By : -None- Revenue By : Shri Prathvi Raj Meena, Cit-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 13/02/2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 14/02/2025 आदेश/O R D E R Per Makarand V. Mahadeokar, Am: This Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi [Hereinafter Referred To As “Cit(A)”] Dated 23.08.2024, Sustaining The Penalty Of Rs. 30,000/- Imposed Under Section 271(1)(B) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Hereinafter Referred To As “The Act”], For Non- Compliance With Statutory Notices Issued Under Section 142(1) During The Course Of Assessment Proceedings For Assessment Year (Ay) 2015-16. Arvindbhai Punabhai Patel Vs. Ito Asst. Year : 2015-16

For Appellant: -None-For Respondent: Shri Prathvi Raj Meena, CIT-DR
Section 142(1)Section 144Section 148Section 148ASection 271(1)(b)Section 272(1)(b)Section 273B

Narayani Educational Health and Charitable Trust, Patna vs. DCIT, Central Circle-2, Patna

Appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 303/PAT/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Patna07 Feb 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishrai.T.A. Nos.301 To 303/Pat/2023 Assessment Years: 2013-14, 2015-16 & 2016-17 Narayani Educational Health & Charitable Trust……..………….……Appellant A/78, P. C Colony, Kankarbagh, Patna, Bihar-800020. [Pan: Aactn2955K] Vs. Dcit, Central Circle-2, Patna....….….. ……………….........……...…..…..Respondent Appearances By: Shri Rakesh Kumar, Advocate, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Ashwani Kr. Singal, Jcit - Sr. Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : February 05, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : February 07, 2025 Order Per Sonjoy Sarma: The Captioned Appeals Have Been Preferred By The Assessee Against Separate Orders All Dated 28.04.2023 Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-3, Patna [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Cit(A)’] Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’) For Assessment Years 2013-14, 2015-16 & 2016-17 Respectively. Since, The Issues Involved In All The Appeals Are Common & Relate To The Same Assessee, Therefore, These Appeals Have Been Heard Together & Are Being Disposed Of By This Consolidated Order. 2. At The Outset, The Registry Has Informed That There Are Delays Of 106 Days In Filing All The Present Appeals. The Assessee Filed Applications For Condonation Of Delay Stating Reasons For Such Delay. After Considering The Applications, We Find Reasonable Cause Which Was Beyond The Control Of The Assessee & The Delays Were Not Intentional. We, Therefore

Section 153CSection 250Section 263Section 271(1)(b)Section 273B

Narayani Educational Health and Charitable Trust, Patna vs. DCIT, Central Circle-2, Patna

Appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 302/PAT/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Patna07 Feb 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishrai.T.A. Nos.301 To 303/Pat/2023 Assessment Years: 2013-14, 2015-16 & 2016-17 Narayani Educational Health & Charitable Trust……..………….……Appellant A/78, P. C Colony, Kankarbagh, Patna, Bihar-800020. [Pan: Aactn2955K] Vs. Dcit, Central Circle-2, Patna....….….. ……………….........……...…..…..Respondent Appearances By: Shri Rakesh Kumar, Advocate, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Ashwani Kr. Singal, Jcit - Sr. Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : February 05, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : February 07, 2025 Order Per Sonjoy Sarma: The Captioned Appeals Have Been Preferred By The Assessee Against Separate Orders All Dated 28.04.2023 Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-3, Patna [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Cit(A)’] Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’) For Assessment Years 2013-14, 2015-16 & 2016-17 Respectively. Since, The Issues Involved In All The Appeals Are Common & Relate To The Same Assessee, Therefore, These Appeals Have Been Heard Together & Are Being Disposed Of By This Consolidated Order. 2. At The Outset, The Registry Has Informed That There Are Delays Of 106 Days In Filing All The Present Appeals. The Assessee Filed Applications For Condonation Of Delay Stating Reasons For Such Delay. After Considering The Applications, We Find Reasonable Cause Which Was Beyond The Control Of The Assessee & The Delays Were Not Intentional. We, Therefore

Section 153CSection 250Section 263Section 271(1)(b)Section 273B