Comparison of section 428 "Fee for default in furnishing return of income." between the Income-Tax Act, 2025 (as passed) and the Income-Tax Bill, 2025 (as originally introduced)

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..../s 263 by the prescribed time. The change affects taxpayers required to file returns; the department's charging mechanism is unchanged in principle but the fee thresholds and phrasing differ. Effective date or enactment date: Not stated in the document. Background & Scope Statutory hooks: the provision operates "without prejudice to the provisions of this Act" and applies where a person is "required to furnish a return of income u/s 263" and fails to do so "within such time as may be prescribed in section 263(1)" (Bill and enacted text). The texts set out mandatory fee amounts tied to total income thresholds. Definitions or explanatory notes: Not stated in the document beyond the reference to "total income" and the cross-reference to ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ecific intent regarding policy rationale (deterrence, revenue, proportionality) is Not stated in the document. Exceptions/Provisos No provisos, carve-outs, exemptions, or procedural stipulations are provided in either text beyond the income threshold and cross-reference to section 263(1). Any interaction with waiver powers, review, remission, or subsequent quantification mechanisms is Not stated in the document. Illustrations * Example 1 (consistent with enacted text): A person with total income of Rs. 4,50,000 who fails to file by the prescribed time may be required to pay a fee not exceeding Rs. 1,000. * Example 2 (consistent with enacted text): A person with total income of Rs. 8,00,000 who fails to file by the prescribed time sha....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....cial consequences; minor drafting variance could affect administrative clarity. Substantively same financial consequences; clearer placement of cap for lower slab may marginally reduce ambiguity. Action Points * Taxpayers should note the two-tier fee structure and the five lakh threshold when assessing late-filing exposure. (Operational procedures for imposition: Not stated in the document.) * Advisers should track whether assessing officers apply a specific amount up to the Rs.1,000 cap for lower-income filers, since discretion is preserved in the cap. (Guidance/forms: Not stated in the document.) * Departmental practice notes or rules explaining assessment, demand, and remittance mechanics would be needed for implementation; such....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ncing (lower slab first; higher slab second) reduces potential misreading about which bracket attracts the cap. Practical impact: slightly improved statutory clarity that may marginally reduce litigation over interpretive sequencing, but substantive effect on taxpayers' liabilities is minimal. * Revenue and compliance incentives: Both versions impose a two-tiered monetary consequence intended to deter late filing, with greater deterrence on higher-income filers. Practical revenue impact and behavioural effects are Not stated in the document (no empirical estimates provided). * Administrative procedures, assessment, demand issuance, remission, or appeal routes for the fee: Not stated in the document. Key Takeaways * Both the Bill ....