Section 452 Penalty for failure to comply with provisions of section 187.

Income-tax Act, 2025

At a Glance

Clause 452 of the Income Tax Bill, 2025 (Old Version) authorises the Assessing Officer to impose a penalty of five thousand rupees per day for failure to provide facilities to accept payments through prescribed electronic payment modes under clause 187, subject to an exception where the person proves "good and sufficient reason" for the failure. It matters because it regulates enforcement and potential penalties on persons required to enable electronic payment acceptance; affected parties include taxpayers, merchants, and persons obligated u/s 187. Effective date or decision date: Not stated in the document.

Background & Scope

Statutory hooks: Clause 452 is part of the Income Tax Bill, 2025 and refers specifically to compliance with clause/section 187. The provision is located in the penalties chapter (PENALTIES) of the Bill. It covers a person's failure to provide a facility for accepting payments through the prescribed electronic modes of payment (as referred to in section 187). Definitions or further explanations of "person," "facility," or "prescribed electronic modes" are Not stated in the document. The Bill text includes an express proviso permitting avoidance of penalty where the person proves "good and sufficient reason for such failure."

Statutory Provision Mode

Text & Scope

Coverage: Clause 452 authorises the Assessing Officer to impose on "a person" a monetary penalty of five thousand rupees for every day during which the person fails to provide the facility for accepting payments through prescribed electronic modes, as referred to in section 187. The penalty is levied for the "duration of failure," indicating a continuing daily liability. Who constitutes "Assessing Officer" is Not stated in the document (but the term is used without definition in the clause). The precise meaning of "provide a facility for accepting payments" and the scope of "prescribed electronic modes" are Not stated in the document; they are instead referenced to section 187.

Interpretation

Legislative intent and interpretive principles indicated by the text: The clause is designed to create a monetary deterrent against non-compliance with the statutory requirement to accept payments electronically. The inclusion of a daily penal rate indicates an intent to incentivise prompt compliance. The proviso ("except when he proves that there were good and sufficient reason for such failure") signals that the legislature contemplated fact-specific exceptions and intended to permit a person to avoid penalty upon satisfactory explanation and proof, suggesting a balancing of deterrence with fairness in deserving circumstances. No legislative history or explanatory memorandum is included in the document; therefore, further intentions or parliamentary debates are Not stated in the document.

Exceptions/Provisos

The clause contains a single proviso: the penalty does not apply "except when he proves that there were good and sufficient reason for such failure." The clause does not define what constitutes "good and sufficient reason," nor does it prescribe standards of proof, the quantum of evidence required, or the timeline and mode by which such proof must be presented. Those procedural or substantive criteria are Not stated in the document.

Illustrations

• Example 1: A merchant required u/s 187 fails to enable the prescribed electronic payment modes for five days. Under Clause 452, the Assessing Officer may impose a penalty of Rs.5,000 per day (total Rs.25,000), but the merchant may avoid the penalty if he proves a "good and sufficient reason" for the five-day failure. Specifics of such proof or adjudicatory process are Not stated in the document.
• Example 2: A service provider experiences an unforeseen technical outage for which it obtains contemporaneous evidence (service provider outage report). Under Clause 452 the Assessing Officer may consider that evidence as a "good and sufficient reason," but the clause does not specify timelines for submission or standards for acceptance; these procedural details are Not stated in the document.

Interplay

Interaction with other provisions: Clause 452 is expressly linked to section 187 (referred to in the clause) as the source of the substantive obligation to provide electronic payment facilities. Any Rules, Notifications, or Circulars that define "prescribed electronic modes" or operationalise section 187 would be relevant; however, those instruments are Not stated in the document. The clause does not state interactions with general penalty provisions, limitation provisions, or review/appeal mechanisms; those cross-references are Not stated in the document.

Differences between the two provisions and practical impact

• Wording on exception: The Clause 452 expressly adds an exception-"except when he proves that there were good and sufficient reason for such failure." The enacted Section 452 omits this exception and contains no proviso permitting the person to avoid penalty by showing cause.
• Resulting practical impact:
  • Burden of avoidance: Under the Bill's text, a person subject to penalty has an explicit statutory pathway to escape penalty by proving "good and sufficient reason." The enacted provision removes that explicit pathway, exposing persons to a strict daily penalty without a statutory exception, increasing compliance risk and potential litigation over fairness and interpretation.
  • Enforcement discretion: The Bill's proviso suggests a fact-sensitive inquiry and potential mitigation; its absence in the Act suggests stricter, potentially automatic imposition by the Assessing Officer, unless other general powers or procedural safeguards elsewhere in law apply. This increases the immediate exposure of taxpayers (or persons required to provide the facility) to monetary sanctions.
  • Administrative behaviour: Tax administration under the Bill would be expected to consider explanations and reasons before imposing penalty; under the enacted Section 452, Assessing Officers may be more prone to levy the daily penalty unless administrative instructions or principles of natural justice intervene from other sources.

Practical Implications

• Compliance and risk areas: There is a clear compliance risk for any person required by section 187 to provide electronic payment facilities. The provision imposes a high daily monetary liability (Rs.5,000/day) that can accumulate quickly. However, the proviso gives the person an affirmative defence to the penalty if he proves "good and sufficient reason." The text does not explain what evidence suffices; therefore, the principal compliance risk is evidentiary-maintaining contemporaneous records demonstrating reasons for any failure will be crucial.
• Record-keeping/evidence points suggested by the text: The clause implies that persons should keep documentation that can demonstrate "good and sufficient reason" for a failure. Practical records likely to be relevant (though not specified in the document) would include outage reports, maintenance schedules, vendor communications, and contemporaneous notices to customers; the clause itself does not enumerate any specific documents or procedural steps. Timelines for presenting such proof are Not stated in the document.

Key Takeaways

• Clause 452 imposes a daily penalty of Rs.5,000 for failure to provide facilities to accept payments via prescribed electronic modes u/s 187.
• The Bill explicitly permits avoidance of the penalty where the person proves "good and sufficient reason" for the failure.
• The clause does not define "good and sufficient reason," nor does it set procedural rules for proving such a reason; those details are Not stated in the document.
• The provision creates a strong financial incentive to ensure continuous availability of prescribed electronic payment facilities, while allowing a fact-sensitive defense.
• Interaction with section 187 and any subordinate rules or administrative guidance is acknowledged but not specified in the clause; related instruments are Not stated in the document.
• Persons covered should anticipate the need to maintain contemporaneous evidence of any failures to rely on the proviso, although the clause does not prescribe the nature of acceptable evidence.
• Procedural and appeal mechanisms, and the role of Assessing Officer discretion in adjudicating "good and sufficient reason," are Not stated in the document.

Actionable points (derived from the clause)

• Maintain contemporaneous records relating to availability of electronic payment facilities, outage reports, vendor communications, and steps taken to restore service.
• Where a failure occurs, compile documentation promptly to demonstrate any "good and sufficient reason" to present to the Assessing Officer; the clause does not prescribe timing or form of such proof.
• Monitor section 187 and related subordinate instruments for precise definitions of "prescribed electronic modes" and any procedural directions, since Clause 452 is linked to that section; these instruments are Not stated in the document.

---

Full Text:

Section 452 Penalty for failure to comply with provisions of section 187.

Penalty for failure to provide electronic payment facilities imposes strict daily liability and removes statutory exception to avoid sanction. The provision imposes a continuing daily monetary penalty, to be levied by the Assessing Officer, for failure to provide facilities to accept payments through prescribed electronic modes; the Bill included a proviso allowing avoidance of the penalty on proof of good and sufficient reason, but the enacted text omits that proviso, leaving key definitions, evidentiary standards, and procedural modalities unspecified.