False verification offences: criminal liability requires proved knowledge or recklessness, with graded imprisonment and mandatory fines.
The provision criminalises making false statements in any statutory verification or delivering false accounts where the person knows or believes the statement to be false or does not believe it to be true. Prosecution must prove this mental element beyond reasonable doubt. A graded penalty applies according to the financial impact of the falsity: substantial evasion attracts a higher term of rigorous imprisonment while other cases attract a lower term, and a fine is mandatorily imposed in addition to imprisonment.

Willful failure to produce accounts triggers criminal liability including imprisonment and mandatory fine under the new tax provision.
Clause 481 establishes a penal offence for willful failure to produce accounts and documents called for by a notice under section 268(1), or willful non compliance with a direction under section 268(5), punishable by rigorous imprisonment for up to one year and liability to fine, with criminal prosecution requiring proof of willfulness beyond reasonable doubt and adherence to procedural safeguards; the clause mirrors prior law while leaving the fine quantum unspecified and raising interpretative issues regarding the threshold for willfulness and potential overlap with other provisions.

Wilful failure to furnish return in search cases creates criminal liability, exposing taxpayers to imprisonment and fines.
Clause 480 penalises a person who, following a search and pursuant to a notice under section 294(1)(a), wilfully fails to furnish a return of income within the prescribed time. The provision requires proof of deliberate non compliance, treats the offence as criminal, and prescribes imprisonment along with a court levied fine, while prosecutions remain subject to ordinary criminal procedure and due process safeguards.

Willful failure to file returns attracts graded criminal penalties including imprisonment and fine; an extended cure period limits prosecutions.
Clause 479 criminalizes the willful failure to furnish returns of income, applying to statutory filing obligations and notice-triggered duties, and establishes a graded criminal penalty regime tied to the tax that would have been evaded. It preserves a mens rea requirement, mandates imprisonment and fine across tiers, and provides exemptions including a one-year cure period to avoid prosecution and a de minimis exception for non-corporate taxpayers, while raising interpretative issues on the definition of wilfulness and calculation of evaded tax.

Wilful tax evasion criminalisation: updated offence framework tightens penalties and preserves additional monetary sanctions for deliberate under-reporting.
Clause 478 establishes an offence of wilful attempt to evade tax, penalty, or interest, including under-reporting, distinguishing evasion of liability from evasion of payment. It prescribes graded sentences with discretionary fines and makes offenders liable to any other penalties under the Act. The provision's inclusive definition-false entries, false statements, wilful omissions, and other enabling circumstances-broadens prosecutorial scope while retaining the requirement to prove mens rea and preserving procedural safeguards for prosecution.

Failure to remit tax collected at source: criminal liability retained with a filing linked safe harbour to encourage timely compliance.
Clause 477 criminalizes failure to remit tax collected at source, adopting a strict liability approach that imposes custodial sentence and fine while offering a statutory safe harbour where TCS is deposited on or before the time prescribed for filing the TCS statement, thereby aligning penal consequences and procedural exemption with the existing framework.

Criminal liability for failure to remit TDS expands enforcement and broadens managerial responsibility, with strict penalties.
Clause 476 criminalizes failure to deposit taxes deducted or collected at source under Chapter XIX-B, extending liability to those who "pay or ensure payment" and prescribing rigorous imprisonment and fine. A proviso bars prosecution if the tax is credited to the Central Government on or before the time prescribed for filing the relevant TDS statement, while cross references to notes and tables expand the catalogue of covered transactions and may complicate interpretation.

Fraudulent asset dissipation criminalized: intent-based offence bars transfers aimed at defeating prescribed tax recovery proceedings.
Clause 475 penalizes the fraudulent removal, concealment, transfer, or delivery of any property or interest with the intent to prevent it from being taken in execution of a prescribed recovery certificate, requiring proof of deceitful intent and applying to tangible and intangible interests; it retains the punitive framework of rigorous imprisonment and fine while replacing an explicit Second Schedule reference with a flexible "as prescribed" linkage to recovery procedures.

Failure to provide inspection facilities criminalises obstruction during tax inspections, attracting imprisonment and fine under the new bill.
Clause 474 of the Income Tax Bill, 2025, makes it an offence to fail to afford an authorised officer the necessary facility to inspect books of account or other documents under section 247(1)(b)(ii), punishable with rigorous imprisonment for up to two years and a fine. The clause largely mirrors Section 275B of the 1961 Act, raises interpretive issues about the definition of "necessary facility" and mens rea, and creates potential overlaps with other penal provisions, while preserving continuity in enforcement policy.

Contravention of tax authority orders may attract imprisonment and fine under the new income tax framework.
Clause 473 establishes an offence for contravening orders under section 247(1)(viii) or (4), penalising such contraventions with rigorous imprisonment up to the statutory maximum and a fine. The clause focuses on breaches concerning custody, retention, or handling of assets or records during investigative processes. It does not specify mens rea or procedural attributes such as cognizability or bailability, so application and defences will be shaped by judicial interpretation and the Bill's broader procedural framework.

Limitation period for tax penalties: quarter based uniform timeline aligns penalty orders with assessment and appellate outcomes.
Clause 472 standardises the limitation for imposing tax penalties by prescribing a uniform six month period measured from the end of the quarter tied to the completion of proceedings, appellate or revisional orders, or issuance of a penalty notice; it permits revision of penalty orders to reflect subsequent assessment modifications, mandates a reasonable opportunity to be heard before adverse penalty action, and excludes rehearing and judicial stay periods from limitation computation.

Natural justice in tax penalties: hearing rights and hierarchical approval govern imposition and administrative oversight under new bill.
Clause 471 requires that no penalty be imposed without the assessee being heard or given a reasonable opportunity, mandates prior Joint Commissioner approval for penalties exceeding specified officer thresholds, and requires that penalty orders passed by authorities other than the Assessing Officer be sent to the Assessing Officer. It mirrors core safeguards of the existing law but omits scheme enabling provisions for faceless, technology driven procedures and transitional rules, creating potential uncertainties over thresholds, definition of reasonable opportunity, procedural delays, and modernization.

Reasonable cause defense protects taxpayers from penalties for bona fide, non culpable defaults and encourages documented compliance.
Clause 470 creates an exception to specified penalty provisions: no penalty shall be imposed if the assessee proves there was reasonable cause for the failure. It functions as a non obstante provision covering enumerated sections, shifts the burden of proof to the taxpayer, and is aimed primarily at bona fide procedural or technical lapses rather than deliberate violations.

Voluntary disclosure and penalty waiver enable administrative relief when pre detection disclosure, cooperation and payment conditions are met.
Clause 469 empowers the Principal Commissioner or Commissioner to reduce or waive penalties under section 439 where a taxpayer has made a full and true voluntary disclosure before detection, cooperated in assessment and paid or arranged payment of tax or interest; it includes a deeming rule for full disclosure, prior approval safeguards for high value cases, a bar on multiple reliefs, a genuine hardship route with recorded reasons, a twelve month disposal limit, opportunity to be heard, and finality of orders.

Penalty for failure to quote TDCAN/TAN: discretionary fixed sanctions apply for non compliance and knowingly false quoting.
Clause 468 empowers the Assessing Officer to impose a fixed monetary penalty for failure to comply with Section 397 and for quoting a false Tax Deduction and Collection Account Number in prescribed documents where the person knows or believes it to be false, making the penalty discretionary and imposing a mens rea requirement for false quoting while not expressly providing for a statutory opportunity of being heard.

PAN/Aadhaar compliance: new per-default penalty regime distinguishes intentional false quoting from strict liability omissions and extends responsible person liability.
Clause 467 establishes a per-default penalty regime for non-compliance with section 262, differentiating intentional false PAN/Aadhaar quoting-which requires proof of knowledge or belief-from omissions treated as strict liability, and extends liability to persons responsible for ensuring correct quoting/authentication; it emphasizes authentication and digital e KYC integration while remaining silent on express procedural safeguards such as the opportunity to be heard, creating potential due process and transitional issues.

Penalty for non cooperation: new provision allows senior tax officers to impose a moderate monetary penalty without explicit hearing safeguards.
Clause 466 empowers specified senior tax officers to impose a moderate monetary penalty for failure to comply with section 254, mirroring prior penalty structure in authority and capped quantum but omitting express procedural safeguards such as an opportunity of being heard, defences like reasonable cause, and a requirement to record reasons, thereby raising concerns about procedural fairness and consistency in imposition.

Penalty for procedural defaults: fixed and daily fines, capped to tax collectible, with delegated authority to impose them.
Clause 465 creates a penalty regime for procedural non compliance under the Income Tax Bill, 2025: a fixed penalty for discrete defaults, a daily penalty for continuing defaults, a cap tying certain penalties to the amount of tax deductible or collectible, and specified authorities empowered to impose penalties; it broadens the definition of income tax authority and updates cross references to the restructured Bill, while notably omitting an explicit provision requiring an opportunity to be heard before penalty imposition.

Penalty regime for failure to furnish prescribed statements strengthens compliance under tax exempt reporting obligations.
A statutory penalty regime targets failure by specified research institutions and charitable funds to furnish prescribed documents, statements, or certificates within prescribed timeframes; penalties fall within a prescribed band and are imposed at the discretion of the Assessing Officer, operating as a civil compliance measure alongside general procedural safeguards and requiring stakeholders to update compliance processes to align with re referenced substantive sections.

Professional accountability: penalty for furnishing incorrect information in professional reports or certificates under the new income tax bill.
Clause 463 imposes a strict-liability penalty regime on accountants, merchant bankers and registered valuers for furnishing incorrect information in any report or certificate under the Act or rules. It prescribes a fixed per-instance monetary penalty and empowers the Assessing Officer, Joint Commissioner (Appeals) or Commissioner (Appeals) to impose the penalty upon satisfaction that incorrect information was furnished. The clause updates definitional references for valuers, omits an explicit definition of "accountant," and operates without prejudice to other civil or criminal consequences.