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

Rama Rao Karnam, Visakhapatnam vs. Joint Commissioner of Income Tax, Range-4, Visakhapatnam

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 141/VIZ/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam10 Aug 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.141/Viz/2022 (ननधधारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2017-18) Mr.Rama Rao Karanam Vs. Joint Commissioner Of 4-4 Chandrampalem, Durga Nagar Income Tax Madhurawada Range-4 Pothinamallayapalem S.O. Visakhapatnam Visakhapatnam Pan : [Bcppk19929Q] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) अपीलधथी की ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri C.Subrahmanyam, Ar प्रत्यधथी की ओर से / Respondent By : Shri O.N.Hari Prasada Rao, Dr सुनवधई की तधरीख / Date Of Hearing : 12.07.2023 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 10.08.2023 आदेश /O R D E R Per Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy: This Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) [Cit(A)], National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi, Vide Din & Order No.Itba/Nfac/S/250/2022-23/1043662508(1) Dated 29.06.2022 For The Assessment Year (A.Y.) 2017-18. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee, An Individual, Filed His Original Return Of Income For The A.Y.2017-18 On 28.03.2019, Declaring Total Income At Rs.3,20,230/-. During The Course Of Assessment

For Appellant: Shri C.Subrahmanyam, ARFor Respondent: Shri O.N.Hari Prasada Rao, DR
Section 250Section 269SSection 271DSection 273B

Kundan Industries Limited, Mumbai vs. Joint Commissioner of Income Tax, Range, Thane

In the result, impugned order is set-aside and appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1730/MUM/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Aug 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Ms. Padmavathy Sआअसं. 1729/मुं/2022 (िन.व. 2017-18) आअसं. 1730/मुं/2022 (िन.व. 2018-19) Kundan Industries Ltd. Kundan House, Harisiddhi Estate, Gorai Pada, Vasai (East), Palghar, Maharashtra-401208. Pan: Aaack6811G ...... अपीलाथ" /Appellant बनाम Vs. Jt.Cit , Tds Range, Ground Floor, Qureshi Mansion, Gokhale Road, Naupada, Thane (West)-400602. ..... "ितवादी/Respondent अपीलाथ" "ारा/ Appellant By : Sh. Rahul Hakani, Advocate "ितवादी "ारा/Respondent By : Sh. Prakash Kishinchandani, Sr. Dr सुनवाई की ितिथ/ Date Of Hearing : 03/08/2023 घोषणा की ितिथ/ Date Of Pronouncement : 09/08/2023 आदेश/ Order Per Vikas Awasthy, Jm These Two Appeals By The Assessee Are Directed Against The Orders Of Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-11, Pune (Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Cit(A)’) For The Assessment Years (Ay) 2017-18 & 2018-19, Respectively. Both The Impugned Orders Are Of Even Date I.E. 20.05.2022. Since, The Grounds Raised In 2 आअसं. 1729 & 1730/मुं/2022(िन.व. 2017-18 & 2018-19) Ita Nos. 1729 & 1730/M/2022 (Ay 2017-18 & 2018-19) Both The Appeals & The Facts Germen To The Grounds Of Appeals Are Identical, These Appeals Are Taken Up Together For Adjudication & Are Decided By This Common Order.

For Appellant: Sh. Rahul Hakani, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sh. Prakash Kishinchandani, Sr. DR
Section 271C

Kundan Industries Limited, Mumbai vs. Joint Commissioner of Income Tax, Range, Thane

In the result, impugned order is set-aside and appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1729/MUM/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Aug 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Ms. Padmavathy Sआअसं. 1729/मुं/2022 (िन.व. 2017-18) आअसं. 1730/मुं/2022 (िन.व. 2018-19) Kundan Industries Ltd. Kundan House, Harisiddhi Estate, Gorai Pada, Vasai (East), Palghar, Maharashtra-401208. Pan: Aaack6811G ...... अपीलाथ" /Appellant बनाम Vs. Jt.Cit , Tds Range, Ground Floor, Qureshi Mansion, Gokhale Road, Naupada, Thane (West)-400602. ..... "ितवादी/Respondent अपीलाथ" "ारा/ Appellant By : Sh. Rahul Hakani, Advocate "ितवादी "ारा/Respondent By : Sh. Prakash Kishinchandani, Sr. Dr सुनवाई की ितिथ/ Date Of Hearing : 03/08/2023 घोषणा की ितिथ/ Date Of Pronouncement : 09/08/2023 आदेश/ Order Per Vikas Awasthy, Jm These Two Appeals By The Assessee Are Directed Against The Orders Of Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-11, Pune (Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Cit(A)’) For The Assessment Years (Ay) 2017-18 & 2018-19, Respectively. Both The Impugned Orders Are Of Even Date I.E. 20.05.2022. Since, The Grounds Raised In 2 आअसं. 1729 & 1730/मुं/2022(िन.व. 2017-18 & 2018-19) Ita Nos. 1729 & 1730/M/2022 (Ay 2017-18 & 2018-19) Both The Appeals & The Facts Germen To The Grounds Of Appeals Are Identical, These Appeals Are Taken Up Together For Adjudication & Are Decided By This Common Order.

For Appellant: Sh. Rahul Hakani, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sh. Prakash Kishinchandani, Sr. DR
Section 271C

Noordeen Ahmed Amina, Salem vs. ITO, NFAC, Delhi

The appeal stand allowed in terms of our above order

ITA 1118/CHNY/2022[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai26 Jul 2023AY 2018-2019

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri V. Durga Rao, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.1118/Chny/2022 (िनधा1रणवष1 / Assessment Year: 2018-19) Noordeen Ahmed Amina Ito बनाम/ 18/27, Ranga Nagar, Suramangalam, Nfac Vs. Salem-636 005. New Delhi. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.Bxepa-3157-Q (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : ("#थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Ms. N.V.Lakshmi(Advocate)- Ld Ar "#थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Shri D.Hema Bhupal (Jcit) – Ld. Sr. Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 24-07-2023 घोषणाकीतारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 26-07-2023 आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal () 1. Aggrieved By Confirmation Of Penalty U/S 271D For Rs.5 Lacs For Assessment Year (Ay) 2018-19, The Assessee Is In Further Appeal Before Us. The Impugned Order Has Been Passed By Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi [Cit(A)] On 26-09-2022 In The Matter Of Impugned Penalty Levied By Ld. Assessing Officer [Ao] U/S. 271D Of The Act Vide Order Dated 22-02-2022. In The Penalty Order, The Penalty Has Been Levied On The Finding That The Assessee Has Received Rs.5 Lacs In Cash On Sale Of Immovable Property

For Appellant: Ms. N.V.Lakshmi(Advocate)- Ld ARFor Respondent: Shri D.Hema Bhupal (JCIT) – Ld. Sr. DR
Section 269SSection 269TSection 271D