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

Vijaya Singh, Patna vs. ITO Ward- 6 (1), Patna

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 157/PAT/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Patna13 Mar 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Hon’Blei.T.A. No. 157/Pat/2023 Assessment Year: 2018-19 Vijaya Singh Income Tax Officer, Ward -6(1), Patna Vs M-55/22A S.K. Nagar Patna - 800001 [Pan: Asups6086N] अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri K.N. Prasad, Advocate Revenue By : Shri Sushil Kumar Mishra, Jcit, D/R सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 07/03/2024 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 13/03/2024 आदेश/O R D E R Per, Dr. Manish Borad: The Present Appeal Is Directed At The Instance Of The Assessee Against The Order Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre (Hereinafter The “Ld. Cit(A)”) Dt. 30/03/2023, Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (“The Act”) For The Assessment Year 2018-19. 2. The Sole Issue For Our Consideration Is Regarding The Levy Of Penalty U/S 272A(1)(D) Of The Act At Rs.40,000/-. At The Outset, The Ld. Counsel For The Assessee Stated That, Admittedly The Assessee Failed To Appear On A Few Occasions During The Assessment Proceedings But Finally Necessary Compliance Was Made & Assessment Was Framed U/S 143(3) Of The Act. Placing Reliance On Various Decisions Including That Of The Co-Ordinate Bench Of The

For Appellant: Shri K.N. Prasad, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Sushil Kumar Mishra, JCIT, D/R
Section 143(3)Section 250Section 272A(1)(d)Section 273B

DCIT Cen Cir 8(2), Mumbai vs. White Feather Films Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, the appeals of the revenue stands dismissed

ITA 7642/MUM/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 Feb 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Br Baskaran, Am & Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.7642/Mum/2016 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2010-11) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.7651/Mum/2016 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2010-11) Dcit, Central, Circle-8(2) बिधम/ M/S. White Feather Films 6Th Floor, Room No. 658, Ltd. Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, M. K. Svp Nagar, Mhada Road, Mumbai-400020. Bungalow No. 91, Four Bungalow, Andheri West, Mumbai-400053. स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaacw4428R (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri K. Gopal A/W M/S. Neha Paranjpe Revenue By: Shri Nayanjyoti Nath (Sr. Ar) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 05/02/2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 15/02/2024 आदेश / O R D E R Per Aby T. Varkey, Jm: These Are Appeals Preferred By The Revenue Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-50, Mumbai Dated 20.09.2016 For The Assessment Year 2010-11 Against The Penalty Confirmed By Addl. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Ao) U/S 271E/271D Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter “The Act”).

For Appellant: Shri K. Gopal a/wFor Respondent: Shri Nayanjyoti Nath (Sr. AR)
Section 269SSection 269TSection 271DSection 271E

Mani Sundaram, Devakottai vs. ITO, Ward-1, Karaikudi

In the result, we are of the considered view that the case on hand does not warrant levy of penalty under Section 271D of the Act

ITA 899/CHNY/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai07 Feb 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri Manjunatha, G.आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.899/Chny/2023 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2017-18 Mani Sundaram, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, No. 52, Thiyagigal Road, Ward-1, Karaikudi. Devakottai, Tamil Nadu 630 302. [Pan:Cwops9124D] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri T. Vasudevan, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Ar V Sreenivasan, Addl. Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 01.02.2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 07.02.2024 आदेश /O R D E R Per V. Durga Rao: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre [Nfac], Delhi, Dated 21.06.2023 Relevant To The Assessment Year 2017-18. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Is A Proprietor Of M/S. Surabi Pvc Pipes & Filed The Return Of Income For The Assessment Year 2017-18 On 20.01.2018 Declaring Taxable Income Of ₹.3,03,720/-. The Return Of Income Was Processed Under Section 143(1) Of The Income Tax

For Appellant: Shri T. Vasudevan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri AR V Sreenivasan, Addl. CIT
Section 143(1)Section 269SSection 271DSection 274