Clause 260 Faceless collection of information.

Income Tax Bill, 2025

Introduction

Clause 260 of the Income Tax Bill, 2025, and Section 135A of the Income-tax Act, 1961, represent significant legislative efforts to modernize and streamline the collection of tax-related information by leveraging technology and faceless procedures. These provisions are part of a broader policy shift towards increased transparency, efficiency, and accountability within the Indian tax administration system. The move to faceless processes is a direct response to concerns about subjectivity, corruption, and inefficiency in traditional tax administration, and is consistent with the government's Digital India initiative.

This commentary provides a detailed analysis of Clause 260, examining its objectives, structure, practical implications, and potential challenges. It then compares Clause 260 with Section 135A of the Income-tax Act, 1961, highlighting similarities, differences, and the legislative evolution in this area.

Objective and Purpose

The primary objective of both Clause 260 and Section 135A is to empower the Central Government to introduce a faceless collection of information scheme for income-tax purposes. The legislative intent is clear: to reduce direct interface between taxpayers and tax authorities, minimize discretion and subjectivity, and promote a more transparent, efficient, and accountable tax administration. The faceless approach is intended to:

• Eliminate physical interface between tax officials and taxpayers to curb corruption and harassment.
• Optimize use of resources by leveraging technology and centralization, thus achieving economies of scale and functional specialization.
• Introduce team-based and dynamic jurisdiction for the collection and processing of information, reducing the risk of bias or arbitrariness.

These objectives align with global best practices and India's own policy trajectory towards digital governance and e-administration.

Detailed Analysis of Clause 260: Key Provisions and Interpretations

1. Enabling Provision for Faceless Scheme (Sub-section 1)

Clause 260(1) authorizes the Central Government to make a scheme, by notification, for the purposes of:

• Calling for information u/s 252;
• Collecting certain information u/s 254;
• Calling for information by prescribed income-tax authority u/s 259;
• Exercising power to inspect register of companies u/s 255;
• Exercising power of Assessing Officer u/s 256.

The scheme is to be designed to impart greater efficiency, transparency, and accountability by:

1. Eliminating the interface between the income-tax authority and the assessee or any other person to the extent technologically feasible.
2. Optimising utilisation of resources through economies of scale and functional specialisation.
3. Introducing a team-based exercise of powers, including calling for, collecting, processing, or utilising the information, with dynamic jurisdiction.

This reflects a legislative mandate to create a robust, technology-driven framework for information collection, with a focus on objectivity and efficiency.

2. Power to Modify Application of Provisions (Sub-section 2)

Clause 260(2) empowers the Central Government to, for the purpose of giving effect to the scheme made under sub-section (1), direct by notification that any of the provisions of the Act shall not apply or shall apply with such exceptions, modifications, and adaptations as specified in the notification.

This is a significant delegation of legislative power, allowing the executive to override or modify statutory provisions to facilitate the faceless scheme. The objective is to provide flexibility in implementation, enabling the government to address practical challenges without the need for frequent legislative amendments.

3. Parliamentary Oversight (Sub-section 3)

Clause 260(3) provides that every notification issued under sub-sections (1) and (2) shall be laid before each House of Parliament as soon as may be after the notification is issued.

This ensures a measure of parliamentary oversight, even as significant powers are delegated to the executive. It also aligns with constitutional principles of accountability and transparency in delegated legislation.

4. Scope of Powers and Dynamic Jurisdiction

The provision contemplates the use of team-based, dynamic jurisdiction in the collection and processing of information. This is intended to break down silos, reduce regional bias, and enable specialization. The reference to "dynamic jurisdiction" suggests that cases or information requests can be assigned across different teams or officers, based on workload, specialization, or other criteria, rather than being tied to a specific geographic jurisdiction.

This is a notable departure from traditional tax administration, which has historically been based on static, geographically defined jurisdictions.

5. Technology and Elimination of Interface

A central theme of Clause 260 is the elimination of physical interface between the taxpayer and the tax authority, to the extent technologically feasible. This is to be achieved through digital platforms, electronic communication, and automated systems.

While this has the potential to reduce corruption and improve taxpayer experience, it also raises concerns about digital literacy, access to technology, and the risk of technical glitches or data breaches.

Practical Implications

1. For Taxpayers

• Reduced subjectivity and harassment: By eliminating physical interaction, taxpayers are less exposed to arbitrary demands or harassment by tax officials.
• Need for digital literacy: Taxpayers will need to be comfortable with digital platforms and processes, which may be a challenge for certain segments, especially small businesses or those in rural areas.
• Potential for procedural complexity: While intended to simplify processes, the use of automated systems may introduce new complexities or technical hurdles for some taxpayers.

2. For Tax Authorities

• Resource optimization: Centralized, technology-driven processes allow for better allocation of resources and specialization.
• Reduced discretion: Team-based and automated systems limit individual discretion, promoting consistency and objectivity.
• Training and adaptation: Tax officials will require training in new systems and processes, and there may be resistance to change.

3. For the Administration

• Flexibility in implementation: The power to modify or suspend statutory provisions allows the administration to address practical challenges quickly.
• Accountability through parliamentary oversight: The requirement to lay notifications before Parliament ensures a measure of transparency and accountability.

4. Potential Challenges

• Delegation of legislative power: The broad power to override statutory provisions raises questions about the limits of delegated legislation and the potential for executive overreach.
• Access and inclusivity: Ensuring that all taxpayers, regardless of digital literacy or access, can effectively participate in faceless processes is a significant challenge.
• Data security and privacy: The reliance on digital systems increases the risk of data breaches and misuse of sensitive taxpayer information.

Comparative Analysis: Clause 260 (Bill, 2025) vs. Section 135A (Act, 1961)

1. Structural Similarities

Both provisions are structurally similar, reflecting a continuity in legislative intent. The key features common to both are:

• Enabling the Central Government to introduce a faceless collection of information scheme by notification.
• Application to the calling for and collection of information, inspection of company registers, and exercise of powers by Assessing Officers.
• Focus on efficiency, transparency, accountability, elimination of interface, resource optimization, and team-based dynamic jurisdiction.
• Provision for the Central Government to modify or suspend the application of statutory provisions to facilitate the scheme.
• Requirement for parliamentary oversight through the laying of notifications before both Houses.

2. Key Differences in Referenced Sections

A notable difference lies in the sections referenced for the purposes of calling for or collecting information:

Clause 260 of the Income Tax Bill, 2025	Section 135A of the Income-tax Act, 1961
Section 252 Section 254 Section 259 Section 255 (inspection of register of companies) Section 256 (powers of Assessing Officer)	Section 133 Section 133B Section 133C Section 134 (inspection of register of companies) Section 135 (powers of Assessing Officer)

This change reflects the renumbering and possible restructuring of provisions in the proposed Income Tax Bill, 2025. The substantive powers referenced remain broadly similar, but are now aligned with the new legislative framework.

3. Temporal and Transitional Provisions

Section 135A of the 1961 Act contained a temporal limitation:

• No direction under sub-section (2) could be issued after 31 March 2022.
• However, the Finance Act, 2023, inserted a proviso allowing the Central Government to amend any direction issued on or before 31 March 2022.

Clause 260 of the 2025 Bill omits any such temporal limitation, indicating an intention to make the faceless scheme a permanent and ongoing feature of the tax administration.

4. Executive Discretion and Parliamentary Oversight

Both provisions delegate significant power to the executive to modify statutory provisions by notification. However, the requirement to lay notifications before Parliament is retained, providing a check on executive discretion.

The lack of a temporal limitation in Clause 260 arguably increases executive discretion, but this is balanced by the requirement for parliamentary oversight.

5. Legislative Evolution and Policy Continuity

Section 135A was introduced in 2020, reflecting a response to the COVID-19 pandemic and the need to minimize physical interaction. The success and acceptance of the faceless assessment and information collection schemes have led to their entrenchment in the new Income Tax Bill, 2025, with Clause 260 representing both a continuation and a consolidation of this policy direction.

The removal of sunset clauses and the alignment with new section numbers suggest a legislative intent to institutionalize faceless processes as the new norm in tax administration.

6. Ambiguities and Potential Issues

• Scope of modifications: The power to modify or suspend statutory provisions is very broad. While necessary for flexibility, it may lead to uncertainty or challenge if used to make substantive changes without legislative approval.
• Due process and taxpayer rights: Ensuring that faceless processes do not compromise procedural fairness or the ability of taxpayers to effectively present their case is essential.
• Technological readiness: The success of the scheme depends on robust digital infrastructure, cyber security, and grievance redressal mechanisms.

Comparative Analysis with International Practice

Globally, tax administrations are moving towards digital and faceless processes. For example, the Australian Taxation Office and the UK's HMRC have adopted digital communication, online portals, and automated risk assessment. However, the power to override statutory provisions by executive notification, as found in Clause 260 and Section 135A, is less common and may raise constitutional concerns regarding separation of powers in other jurisdictions. The Indian approach is unique in its breadth of executive discretion, albeit subject to parliamentary oversight.

Conclusion

Clause 260 of the Income Tax Bill, 2025, represents a significant and deliberate shift towards a technology-driven, faceless tax administration. It builds upon the foundation laid by Section 135A of the Income-tax Act, 1961, but removes temporal limitations and aligns with the broader restructuring of the tax code. The provision empowers the Central Government to create flexible, efficient, and transparent systems for collecting tax-related information, while delegating substantial legislative power to the executive.

The success of the scheme will depend on careful implementation, robust digital infrastructure, and safeguards for taxpayer rights and data security. The absence of a sunset clause in Clause 260 signals a permanent commitment to faceless processes, making it imperative that the system is inclusive, fair, and accountable. Parliamentary oversight remains a crucial check on executive power, but continued vigilance is required to ensure that the scheme delivers on its promise of efficiency and transparency without undermining the rights of taxpayers or the principles of legislative supremacy.

---

Full Text:

Clause 260 Faceless collection of information.

Faceless collection of information: executive empowered to implement digital, non interface tax information schemes with parliamentary oversight. Clause 260 empowers the Central Government, by notification, to create a faceless collection of information scheme for calling for and collecting tax information, inspecting company registers, and exercising assessing powers, enabling elimination of physical interfaces, centralised resource optimisation, team based dynamic jurisdiction, and exceptions or modifications to other statutory provisions to implement the scheme, with the requirement that notifications be laid before both Houses of Parliament.