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

M/S. Agarwal Transport Corporation, Cuttack vs. ITO, Ward-2(1), Cuttack

In the result, both appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 407/CTK/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack16 Dec 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri C.M. Garg, Jm & Shri L.P. Sahu, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं./Ita Nos.406&407/Ctk/2019 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Years :2012-2013 & 2013-2014) M/S Agarwal Transport Corp. Vs. Ito, Ward-2(1),Cuttack At: Bagha Mangala Lane, Mangalabag, Po: Buxi Bazar,Cuttack-753001 स्थायी लेखा सं./Pan No. : Aaffa 2795 K (अऩीलाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) : ननधाारिती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri S.N.Sahu & Shri Somnath Sahu, Advocates िाजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Subhendu Dutta, Dr सुनवाई की तािीख / Date Of Hearing : 28/11/2019 घोषणा की तािीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 16/12/2019 आदेश / O R D E R Per L.P.Sahu, Am: These Two Appeals Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Cit(A), Cuttack, Dated 07.09.2018 & 31.08.2018 For The Assessment Years 2012-2013 & 2013-2014. 2. The Sole Issue Involved In Both The Appeals Of The Assessee Is With Regard To Confirming The Penalty Levied U/S.271A Of The Act. 3. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Derives Income From Execution Of Transportation Works In The Name & Style Of ‘M/S Agarwala Transport’ & Filed Its Return Of Income On 27.09.2012 For The A.Y.2012-2013 Declaring Total Income At Rs.11,61,300/-. Similarly, The Assessee Filed Its Return Of Income For A.Y.2013-2014 On 21.09.2013 Declaring Total Income At Rs.10,67,380/-. Both The Cases Of The Assessee

For Appellant: Shri S.N.Sahu &For Respondent: Shri Subhendu Dutta, DR
Section 145(3)Section 271ASection 44A

M/S. Agarwal Transport Corporation, Cuttack vs. ITO, Ward-2(1), Cuttack

In the result, both appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 406/CTK/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack16 Dec 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri C.M. Garg, Jm & Shri L.P. Sahu, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं./Ita Nos.406&407/Ctk/2019 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Years :2012-2013 & 2013-2014) M/S Agarwal Transport Corp. Vs. Ito, Ward-2(1),Cuttack At: Bagha Mangala Lane, Mangalabag, Po: Buxi Bazar,Cuttack-753001 स्थायी लेखा सं./Pan No. : Aaffa 2795 K (अऩीलाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) : ननधाारिती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri S.N.Sahu & Shri Somnath Sahu, Advocates िाजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Subhendu Dutta, Dr सुनवाई की तािीख / Date Of Hearing : 28/11/2019 घोषणा की तािीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 16/12/2019 आदेश / O R D E R Per L.P.Sahu, Am: These Two Appeals Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Cit(A), Cuttack, Dated 07.09.2018 & 31.08.2018 For The Assessment Years 2012-2013 & 2013-2014. 2. The Sole Issue Involved In Both The Appeals Of The Assessee Is With Regard To Confirming The Penalty Levied U/S.271A Of The Act. 3. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Derives Income From Execution Of Transportation Works In The Name & Style Of ‘M/S Agarwala Transport’ & Filed Its Return Of Income On 27.09.2012 For The A.Y.2012-2013 Declaring Total Income At Rs.11,61,300/-. Similarly, The Assessee Filed Its Return Of Income For A.Y.2013-2014 On 21.09.2013 Declaring Total Income At Rs.10,67,380/-. Both The Cases Of The Assessee

For Appellant: Shri S.N.Sahu &For Respondent: Shri Subhendu Dutta, DR
Section 145(3)Section 271ASection 44A

Shri M. Abdul Gani, Madurai vs. ITO, Ncw - 1 (1), Madurai

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 2354/CHNY/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai09 Dec 2019AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri S. Jayaramanआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.2351, 2352, 2353 & 2354/Chny/2019 धनिाजरण वर्ज /Assessment Years: 2012-13, 2013-14, 2014-15 & 2015-16 Shri M. Abdul Gani, Income Tax Officer No.93, South Avani Moola Street, Non-Corporate Ward-1(1), Madurai – 625 001. Vs. 2, V.P. Rathinasamy Nadar Road, Cr Building, [Pan: Aalpa 6445L] Bibikulam, Madurai – 625 002 (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी/Respondent) अपीलाथी की ओर से/ Appellant By Mr. S. Sriniranjani, Advocate : प्रत्यथी की ओर से /Respondent By : Ms. R. Anita, Jcit सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 09.12.2019 घोर्णा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 09.12.2019 आदेश / O R D E R Per George Mathan: These Are Appeals Filed By The Assessee Against The Common Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-2, Madurai Confirming The Levy Of Penalty U/S.271B Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 In Ita Nos.10 To 13/2018-19 Dated 03.07.2019 For The Assessment Years 2012-13, 2013-14, 2014-15 & 2015-16. Ita Nos. 2351, 2352, 2353 & 2354/Chny/2019 :- 2 -: 2. Mr. S. Sriniranjani, Advocate Represented On Behalf Of The Assessee & Ms. R. Anita, Jcit Represented On Behalf Of The Revenue.

For Respondent: Ms. R. Anita, JCIT
Section 148Section 271BSection 273BSection 44A

Shri M. Abdul Gani, Madurai vs. ITO, Ncw - 1 (1), Madurai

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 2353/CHNY/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai09 Dec 2019AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri S. Jayaramanआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.2351, 2352, 2353 & 2354/Chny/2019 धनिाजरण वर्ज /Assessment Years: 2012-13, 2013-14, 2014-15 & 2015-16 Shri M. Abdul Gani, Income Tax Officer No.93, South Avani Moola Street, Non-Corporate Ward-1(1), Madurai – 625 001. Vs. 2, V.P. Rathinasamy Nadar Road, Cr Building, [Pan: Aalpa 6445L] Bibikulam, Madurai – 625 002 (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी/Respondent) अपीलाथी की ओर से/ Appellant By Mr. S. Sriniranjani, Advocate : प्रत्यथी की ओर से /Respondent By : Ms. R. Anita, Jcit सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 09.12.2019 घोर्णा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 09.12.2019 आदेश / O R D E R Per George Mathan: These Are Appeals Filed By The Assessee Against The Common Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-2, Madurai Confirming The Levy Of Penalty U/S.271B Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 In Ita Nos.10 To 13/2018-19 Dated 03.07.2019 For The Assessment Years 2012-13, 2013-14, 2014-15 & 2015-16. Ita Nos. 2351, 2352, 2353 & 2354/Chny/2019 :- 2 -: 2. Mr. S. Sriniranjani, Advocate Represented On Behalf Of The Assessee & Ms. R. Anita, Jcit Represented On Behalf Of The Revenue.

For Respondent: Ms. R. Anita, JCIT
Section 148Section 271BSection 273BSection 44A

Shri M. Abdul Gani, Madurai vs. ITO, Ncw - 1 (1), Madurai

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 2352/CHNY/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai09 Dec 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri S. Jayaramanआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.2351, 2352, 2353 & 2354/Chny/2019 धनिाजरण वर्ज /Assessment Years: 2012-13, 2013-14, 2014-15 & 2015-16 Shri M. Abdul Gani, Income Tax Officer No.93, South Avani Moola Street, Non-Corporate Ward-1(1), Madurai – 625 001. Vs. 2, V.P. Rathinasamy Nadar Road, Cr Building, [Pan: Aalpa 6445L] Bibikulam, Madurai – 625 002 (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी/Respondent) अपीलाथी की ओर से/ Appellant By Mr. S. Sriniranjani, Advocate : प्रत्यथी की ओर से /Respondent By : Ms. R. Anita, Jcit सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 09.12.2019 घोर्णा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 09.12.2019 आदेश / O R D E R Per George Mathan: These Are Appeals Filed By The Assessee Against The Common Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-2, Madurai Confirming The Levy Of Penalty U/S.271B Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 In Ita Nos.10 To 13/2018-19 Dated 03.07.2019 For The Assessment Years 2012-13, 2013-14, 2014-15 & 2015-16. Ita Nos. 2351, 2352, 2353 & 2354/Chny/2019 :- 2 -: 2. Mr. S. Sriniranjani, Advocate Represented On Behalf Of The Assessee & Ms. R. Anita, Jcit Represented On Behalf Of The Revenue.

For Respondent: Ms. R. Anita, JCIT
Section 148Section 271BSection 273BSection 44A

Shri M. Abdul Gani, Madurai vs. ITO, Ncw - 1 (1), Madurai

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 2351/CHNY/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai09 Dec 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri S. Jayaramanआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.2351, 2352, 2353 & 2354/Chny/2019 धनिाजरण वर्ज /Assessment Years: 2012-13, 2013-14, 2014-15 & 2015-16 Shri M. Abdul Gani, Income Tax Officer No.93, South Avani Moola Street, Non-Corporate Ward-1(1), Madurai – 625 001. Vs. 2, V.P. Rathinasamy Nadar Road, Cr Building, [Pan: Aalpa 6445L] Bibikulam, Madurai – 625 002 (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी/Respondent) अपीलाथी की ओर से/ Appellant By Mr. S. Sriniranjani, Advocate : प्रत्यथी की ओर से /Respondent By : Ms. R. Anita, Jcit सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 09.12.2019 घोर्णा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 09.12.2019 आदेश / O R D E R Per George Mathan: These Are Appeals Filed By The Assessee Against The Common Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-2, Madurai Confirming The Levy Of Penalty U/S.271B Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 In Ita Nos.10 To 13/2018-19 Dated 03.07.2019 For The Assessment Years 2012-13, 2013-14, 2014-15 & 2015-16. Ita Nos. 2351, 2352, 2353 & 2354/Chny/2019 :- 2 -: 2. Mr. S. Sriniranjani, Advocate Represented On Behalf Of The Assessee & Ms. R. Anita, Jcit Represented On Behalf Of The Revenue.

For Respondent: Ms. R. Anita, JCIT
Section 148Section 271BSection 273BSection 44A