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

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

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

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

ITA 453/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

Sri Jagmohan Sharma, Burdwan vs. JCIT, RG-3, Asansol

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

ITA 553/KOL/2015[2005-2006]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata10 Jan 2018AY 2005-2006

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.552 & 553/Kol/2015 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2005-06) Sri Jagmohan Sharma Vs. Jcit, Rg-3, Asansol Parmar Building, 54, G.T. Prop: Tirupati Auto Engg., 128 Road, Apkar Garden, Asansol Mile Post, G.T. Road, P.O- – 713 304. Searsole, Rajbari, Raniganj, Dist- Burdwan, Pin – 713358 (Wb) "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. : Ajaps 8778 G (Assessee) .. (Respondent) Assessee By :Shri V.N Purohit, Fca. Respondent By:Shri Soumyajit Dasgupta, Addl. Cit सुनवाईकीतारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 21/11/2017 घोषणाकीतारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 10/01/2018 आदेश / O R D E R Per Dr. Arjun Lal Saini, Am: The Captioned Two Appeals Filed By The Assessee, Pertaining To Assessment Year 2005-06, Are Directed Against The Orders Passed By The Cit(A) In Appeal Nos. 81&82/Cit(A)/Asl/R-3/Asl/12-13, Both Dated 20.03.2015, Which In Turn Arise Out Of Penalty Orders Passed By The Assessing Officer Under Sections 271D & 271E Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’), Both Dated 28.06.2012. 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.552/Kol.2015, For A.Y.2005-06, Is Taken As The Lead Case.

For Appellant: Shri V.N Purohit, FCAFor Respondent: Shri Soumyajit Dasgupta, Addl. CIT
Section 143(3)Section 269SSection 269TSection 271DSection 271ESection 69A

Sri Jagmohan Sharma, Burdwan vs. JCIT, RG-3, Asansol, Burdwan

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

ITA 552/KOL/2015[2005-2006]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata10 Jan 2018AY 2005-2006

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.552 & 553/Kol/2015 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2005-06) Sri Jagmohan Sharma Vs. Jcit, Rg-3, Asansol Parmar Building, 54, G.T. Prop: Tirupati Auto Engg., 128 Road, Apkar Garden, Asansol Mile Post, G.T. Road, P.O- – 713 304. Searsole, Rajbari, Raniganj, Dist- Burdwan, Pin – 713358 (Wb) "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. : Ajaps 8778 G (Assessee) .. (Respondent) Assessee By :Shri V.N Purohit, Fca. Respondent By:Shri Soumyajit Dasgupta, Addl. Cit सुनवाईकीतारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 21/11/2017 घोषणाकीतारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 10/01/2018 आदेश / O R D E R Per Dr. Arjun Lal Saini, Am: The Captioned Two Appeals Filed By The Assessee, Pertaining To Assessment Year 2005-06, Are Directed Against The Orders Passed By The Cit(A) In Appeal Nos. 81&82/Cit(A)/Asl/R-3/Asl/12-13, Both Dated 20.03.2015, Which In Turn Arise Out Of Penalty Orders Passed By The Assessing Officer Under Sections 271D & 271E Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’), Both Dated 28.06.2012. 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.552/Kol.2015, For A.Y.2005-06, Is Taken As The Lead Case.

For Appellant: Shri V.N Purohit, FCAFor Respondent: Shri Soumyajit Dasgupta, Addl. CIT
Section 143(3)Section 269SSection 269TSection 271DSection 271ESection 69A