Clause 428 Fee for default in furnishing return of income.

Income Tax Bill, 2025

Legal Commentary on Clause 428 of Income Tax Bill, 2025 and Comparative Analysis with Section 234F of Income Tax Act, 1961

Introduction

Clause 428 of the Income Tax Bill, 2025 and Section 234F of the Income-tax Act, 1961 are statutory provisions that impose a fee on taxpayers for default in furnishing their return of income within the prescribed time. Both provisions serve as a compliance tool, encouraging timely filing of income tax returns and penalizing non-compliance through monetary consequences. While Section 234F has been operative since assessment year 2018-19, Clause 428 is proposed in the context of a new legislative framework, potentially signaling a shift in the procedural and substantive aspects of income tax administration.

This commentary provides a comprehensive legal analysis of Clause 428, delving into its structure, purpose, and practical implications. It then undertakes a detailed comparative analysis with Section 234F, highlighting similarities, differences, and the broader policy context. The discussion is structured to assist practitioners, policymakers, and taxpayers in understanding the evolving landscape of compliance obligations and penalties under Indian income tax law.

Objective and Purpose

The principal objective of both Clause 428 and Section 234F is to ensure timely compliance with the statutory obligation to file returns of income. The imposition of a fee, as opposed to a criminal penalty, is designed to function as a deterrent rather than a punitive measure. This aligns with the broader policy approach of the Income Tax Act, which seeks to foster voluntary compliance while reserving harsher sanctions for more egregious defaults or fraudulent conduct.

A review of the historical background reveals that prior to the introduction of Section 234F, there was no specific fee for late filing of returns, although interest and penalties could be levied in certain cases. The Finance Act, 2017 introduced Section 234F to address this gap, providing a straightforward, predictable monetary consequence for late filing. The subsequent amendments (notably by the Finance Act, 2021) streamlined the fee structure to make it more equitable and administratively efficient.

Clause 428 of the Income Tax Bill, 2025, as part of a proposed legislative overhaul, appears to retain the broad contours of Section 234F but with certain modifications. The legislative intent is evidently to continue the regime of incentivizing timely compliance while potentially aligning the provision with other changes in the tax code, such as the procedural requirements under the proposed Section 263.

Detailed Analysis of Clause 428 of the Income Tax Bill, 2025

Text of Clause 428

Clause 428 reads:
"Without prejudice to the provisions of this Act, where, a person required to furnish a return of income u/s 263 fails to do so within the time as prescribed in section 263(1) he shall pay, by way of a fee,-

• (a) a sum of five thousand rupees, if the total income of such person exceeds five lakh rupees;
• (b) a sum not exceeding one thousand rupees in any other case."

The clause is accompanied by an explanatory note stating that the assessee is liable to pay a fee for failure to furnish a return of income by the prescribed due date.

Key Elements and Structure

• Triggering Event: The fee is levied when a person required to furnish a return u/s 263 fails to do so within the prescribed time (as per Section 263(1)).
• Quantum of Fee:
  • Rs. 5,000 if total income exceeds Rs. 5 lakh.
  • Not exceeding Rs. 1,000 in other cases.
• "Without prejudice" Clause: The provision operates in addition to other consequences under the Act, such as interest, prosecution, or other penalties.

Interpretation and Legal Principles

• The phrase "without prejudice to the provisions of this Act" is significant, as it clarifies that the fee under Clause 428 is in addition to any other consequences (such as interest for late payment, penalty for concealment, or prosecution for willful default). This reflects a legislative intent to treat the fee as a sui generis compliance cost, distinct from punitive sanctions.
• The reference to Section 263 as the triggering provision for the obligation to file a return is a departure from the current Section 139 under the 1961 Act. The implications of this change depend on the content of Section 263 in the new Bill. If Section 263 substantially corresponds to Section 139, the practical effect may be similar; however, any differences in the scope of persons required to file, or in the due dates prescribed, could alter the application of the fee.
• The quantum of the fee is structured to be proportionate to the taxpayer's income, with a lower cap for those with total income not exceeding Rs. 5 lakh. This reflects a policy of progressive compliance costs, shielding small taxpayers from disproportionate burdens.

Comparative Analysis with Section 234F of the Income-tax Act, 1961

Text and Structure of Section 234F

Section 234F (as substituted by the Finance Act, 2021) provides:

"Without prejudice to the provisions of this Act, where a person required to furnish a return of income under Section 139, fails to do so within the time prescribed in sub-section (1) of the said section, he shall pay, by way of a fee, a sum of five thousand rupees:
Provided that if the total income of the person does not exceed five lakh rupees, the fee payable under this section shall not exceed one thousand rupees."

Earlier, the provision had a two-tier fee structure based on the date of filing (Rs. 5,000 if filed by 31st December; Rs. 10,000 thereafter), but this was rationalized in 2021 to the current slab.

Key Points of Comparison

Aspect	Clause 428 of the Income Tax Bill, 2025	Section 234F of the Income-tax Act, 1961
Triggering Section	Failure to file return u/s 263	Failure to file return u/s 139(1)
Fee for Income > Rs. 5 lakh	Rs. 5,000	Rs. 5,000
Fee for Income <= Rs. 5 lakh	Not exceeding Rs. 1,000	Not exceeding Rs. 1,000
Graduated Fee Structure	No; flat fee based on income slab	No (post-2021); earlier, yes (Rs. 10,000 for very late filing)
Scope of Application	Depends on Section 263 (new code)	Section 139(1) (current code)
Discretion in Fee Imposition	Possible (due to "not exceeding" wording)	Possible (similar wording)
"Without prejudice" Clause	Yes	Yes

Substantive and Procedural Differences

• Reference Section: The most significant difference lies in the reference section. Clause 428 is triggered by default u/s 263, which is presumably the new provision corresponding to Section 139. Unless Section 263 is broader or narrower, this change may be primarily terminological, but it could have substantive consequences if the new code changes the persons or circumstances in which return filing is mandatory.
• Quantum and Structure of Fee: Both provisions now adopt a flat fee structure, with a lower cap for incomes up to Rs. 5 lakh. The earlier version of Section 234F (pre-2021) had a steeper penalty for very late filing, but this was rationalized to the current structure, which is mirrored in Clause 428.
• Discretion in Fee Imposition: Both provisions use the phrase "not exceeding" for the lower-income slab, potentially allowing for administrative discretion. However, in practice, the fee is typically fixed at Rs. 1,000 unless otherwise specified by circular or notification.
• Effective Dates and Applicability: Section 234F applies from assessment year 2018-19 onwards. Clause 428 will apply prospectively, subject to the commencement of the new Act.

Policy Rationale for Changes

The rationalization of the fee structure (from a two-tier to a flat structure) reflects a policy choice to simplify compliance and avoid excessive penalization for late filing. Both provisions aim to balance the need for deterrence with fairness, particularly for small taxpayers.

The shift in reference from Section 139 to Section 263 may be part of a broader legislative restructuring, possibly to consolidate or clarify the obligations relating to return filing. The precise impact will depend on the content and interpretation of Section 263 in the new Bill.

Potential Conflicts and Overlaps

Given that both provisions operate "without prejudice" to other consequences under the Act, there is a risk of cumulative liability (e.g., interest, penalty, prosecution) for the same default. However, the fee under Clause 428/Section 234F is designed to be a distinct compliance cost, not a substitute for other sanctions.

In cases where the new Act alters the scope of persons required to file (e.g., by expanding or contracting the categories u/s 263), there could be transitional issues, particularly for taxpayers accustomed to the regime u/s 139.

Practical Implications and Compliance Considerations

For Taxpayers

• Timely filing is incentivized through a predictable, moderate fee for late compliance, rather than a harsh penalty.
• Small taxpayers are protected by a lower cap, reducing the risk of disproportionate financial burden.
• Potential for administrative relief exists in genuine cases, depending on how the "not exceeding" language is operationalized.
• Awareness and education about new triggering provisions (Section 263) will be crucial during the transition to the new Act.

For Tax Authorities

• Simplified fee structure aids in efficient administration and reduces disputes over quantum of liability.
• Clear legislative authority to impose fees, with discretion where appropriate, supports fair and effective enforcement.
• Need for clarity and guidance on application of "not exceeding" language to ensure uniformity and minimize litigation.

For Legal Practitioners

• Transitional advice will be required for clients moving from the Section 139 regime to Section 263 under the new Act.
• Potential for litigation or representation in cases where fee imposition is disputed, particularly regarding the quantum or applicability of the fee.
• Scope for advocacy regarding further rationalization or clarification, especially for vulnerable or small taxpayers.

Conclusion

Clause 428 of the Income Tax Bill, 2025, largely mirrors the structure and intent of Section 234F of the Income-tax Act, 1961, signaling continuity in the policy of incentivizing timely return filing through a moderate, income-linked fee. The principal differences arise from the reference to the new Section 263 as the triggering provision, and the wording "not exceeding" in respect of the lower-income slab, which may allow for greater administrative discretion.

The provision is well-calibrated to balance deterrence with fairness, particularly for small taxpayers, and is likely to be effective in promoting compliance. However, transitional issues may arise as the new Act comes into force, particularly if the scope of return filing obligations changes u/s 263. Clarity on the exercise of administrative discretion, and continued taxpayer education, will be essential to ensure smooth implementation and minimize disputes.

Looking ahead, there may be scope for further refinement, such as introducing a graduated fee structure for persistent or egregious defaults, or providing for automatic relief in cases of genuine hardship. Judicial clarification may also be required on the scope of administrative discretion under the "not exceeding" formulation. Overall, Clause 428 represents a continuation of a pragmatic, compliance-oriented approach to tax administration in India.

---

Full Text:

Clause 428 Fee for default in furnishing return of income.

Late filing fee for income tax returns: income linked penalties retained, alongside other liabilities and administrative discretion. Clause 428 imposes a fee where a person required to furnish a return under Section 263 fails to file within the prescribed time, with an income linked structure: a higher fee for those above a specified income threshold and a capped lower fee otherwise; the clause operates without prejudice to interest, penalties, or prosecution and retains administrative discretion through 'not exceeding' wording for the lower slab.