Section 479 Failure to furnish returns of income

Income-tax Act, 2025

At a Glance

This document is Clause 479 of the Income Tax Bill, 2025 (Old Version) entitled "Failure to furnish returns of income." It prescribes penal consequences where a person wilfully fails to furnish, in due time, a return of income required under specified sections. The provision affects taxpayers (individuals and companies), enforcement authorities and the prosecutorial framework. Effective date or enactment date: Not stated in the document.

Background & Scope

Statutory hook: Clause 479 sits under the chapter heading "OFFENCES AND PROSECUTION" within the Income Tax Bill, 2025. It addresses criminal liability for willful failure to furnish a return required u/s 263(1) or by notice u/ss 268(1) or 280. The clause distinguishes high-value evasion cases (where the amount of tax that would have been evaded exceeds twenty-five lakh rupees) from other cases, and sets minimum and maximum terms of imprisonment and fine. The text provides no in-line definitions; any defined terms (for example, "wilfully", "return of income", "total income", or precise meanings of sections 263, 268, 280) must be located elsewhere in the Bill or Act. Not stated in the document: detailed definitions or legislative intent beyond the penal scheme.

Statutory Provision Mode

Text & Scope

Clause 479(1) criminalises a person's wilful failure to furnish, in due time, the return of income required u/s 263(1) or by notice u/ss 268(1) or 280. Two tiers of punishment are specified:

• Sub-clause (a): where the amount of tax that would have been evaded (if the failure had not been discovered) exceeds twenty-five lakh rupees - rigorous imprisonment not less than six months and up to seven years; and liability to fine.
• Sub-clause (b): in any other case - imprisonment not less than three months and up to two years; and liability to fine.

Clause 479(2) creates a bar to prosecution for failure to furnish the return u/s 263(1) for any tax year, if either:

• (a) the return is furnished before the expiry of one year from the end of the tax year or a return is furnished u/s 263(6) within the time provided in that section; or
• (b) for a person other than a company, the tax payable on total income determined on regular assessment, reduced by advance tax or self-assessment tax paid before the expiry of one year from the end of the tax year and any tax deducted or collected at source, does not exceed ten thousand rupees.

Interpretation

The clause uses the conventional penal structure: mens rea ("wilfully") plus an act (failure to furnish). The text indicates legislative policy to differentiate between significant evasion (greater than Rs. 25 lakh) and lesser cases by calibrating maximum and minimum imprisonment. The immunity provisions in sub-section (2) embody a limited safe harbour, permitting prosecution to be avoided where the return is subsequently furnished within the specified time or where the tax shortfall is de minimis for non-companies. The clause ties the exemption under (2)(a) specifically to temporal compliance (one year from the end of the tax year) or to compliance u/s 263(6); (2)(b) uses the same temporal reference for counting late tax payments for the de-minimis test.

Exceptions/Provisos

The provision itself contains its exceptions at sub-section (2): temporal cure of the default and a monetary de-minimis threshold applicable to non-company taxpayers. There are no other provisos or carve-outs in the text. Not stated in the document: whether the de-minimis threshold applies to companies (the clause expressly excludes companies) or any alternative thresholds for companies; the policy reasoning for the Rs. 10,000 limit; procedural consequences where immunity conditions are met (for example, whether civil penalties remain payable) are not stated.

Illustrations

• Example 1: A non-company taxpayer fails to file the return for AY 2025-26 but files the return within one year from the end of the tax year; therefore, under clause 479(2)(a) prosecution would be barred. (Consistent with the text.)
• Example 2: A person wilfully fails to furnish a return and the tax that would have been evaded is assessed at Rs. 30 lakh; the person is punishable under clause 479(1)(a) with rigorous imprisonment between six months and seven years and liable to fine. (Consistent with the text.)
• Example 3: A corporate taxpayer whose shortfall is under Rs. 10,000 but who did not pay the advance tax before the expiry of one year may not benefit from clause 479(2)(b) because the exclusion expressly applies only to persons "not being a company." (Consistent with the text.)

Interplay

The clause references sections 263(1), 263(6), 268(1) and 280. The provision's practical import therefore depends on the procedural timelines and definitions set out in those sections. The document does not reproduce or summarise sections 263, 268 or 280, nor any Rules, Notifications or Circulars that may interpret them. Not stated in the document: interaction with penal provisions elsewhere in the Bill/Act (for example, provisions dealing with prosecution procedure, compoundability, or assessment procedures) and whether prosecution under Clause 479 can be combined with other criminal charges for related tax offences.

Differences Between the Two Provisions and Practical Impact

• Wording on Fine Liability: Document 1 (Section 479, Income-tax Act, 2025) states the punishments "with fine" in sub-clauses (a) and (b). Document 2 (Clause 479 of the Income Tax Bill, 2025 (Old Version)) states the offender "shall also be liable to fine."
  • Practical impact: No substantive difference in penalty exposure; the Bill's language emphasises an additional fine liability whereas the enacted version uses a shorter phrase. Both imply imprisonment plus fine; no material change in sanction quantum is specified in either text.
• Timing/Conditions for Curing Failure (sub-section (2)(a)): Document 2 (Bill, Old Version) provides that a person shall not be proceeded against if "the return is furnished by him before the expiry of one year from the end of the tax year or a return is furnished by him u/s 263(6) within the time provided in that section." Document 1 (Act, enacted Section 479) instead provides that a person shall not be proceeded against if "a return is furnished by him u/s 263(4) or 263(6)."
  • Practical impact: The Bill's Old Version allows a specific time-limit cure (within one year from the end of the tax year) as an immunity condition; the enacted Act replaces that explicit one-year cure by reference to section 263(4) (which presumably contains the timing) and 263(6). If section 263(4) contains a different time frame than one year, this is a substantive change to the available safe harbour; if 263(4) corresponds to the one-year provision, the change is largely stylistic. The enacted text removes the redundant explicit "one year" phrasing and anchors the immunity to the procedure in section 263(4). The practical consequence depends on the content of section 263(4) (Not stated in the document).
• Timing Reference in Sub-section (2)(b): Document 2 reduces the tax payable threshold calculation by referencing amounts "paid before the expiry of one year from the end of the tax year." Document 1 modifies that to amounts "paid before the expiry of period specified u/s 263(4)".
  • Practical impact: Similar to (2)(a), the Bill's Old Version uses an explicit one-year benchmark for counting advance/self-assessment tax payments; the enacted version ties the benchmark to section 263(4). Whether this expands or narrows the scope of immunity depends on the actual period specified in section 263(4) (Not stated in the document).

Practical Implications

• Compliance and risk areas: The clause elevates the stakes for deliberate non-filing by providing significant custodial exposure where the tax evaded exceeds Rs. 25 lakh. Taxpayers should be aware that willful non-filing, once construed by authorities as intentional, exposes them to criminal prosecution unless the specified cure is available. For companies, the de-minimis safe harbour in sub-section (2)(b) does not apply, exposing corporate failures to prosecution even for relatively small tax shortfalls (Not stated in the document: reason for exclusion of companies).
• Record-keeping/evidence points: Relevant documentary evidence to demonstrate timely payment of advance or self-assessment tax (dates and amounts) and evidence of filing within the one-year window will be material to establishing the bar in sub-section (2). Evidence of absence of wilfulness (for example, correspondence, bona fide difficulties) would also be relevant to rebut the mens rea requirement; however, procedural guidance on burden of proof is Not stated in the document.

Key Takeaways

• Clause 479 criminalises wilful failure to furnish returns required under specified sections, with tiered custodial penalties linked to the amount of tax evaded.
• High-value cases (tax evaded > Rs. 25 lakh) attract rigorous imprisonment of six months to seven years plus fine; other cases attract imprisonment of three months to two years plus fine.
• Prosecution is barred if the return is filed within one year from the end of the tax year (or u/s 263(6) within its time) or where, for non-companies, the net tax liability after qualifying payments does not exceed Rs. 10,000.
• The provision excludes companies from the monetary de-minimis immunity; the rationale and alternative company thresholds are Not stated in the document.
• The provision's practical effect depends on the content and timelines of sections 263, 268 and 280, which are not reproduced here; those cross-references must be consulted to determine exact temporal and procedural mechanics.

Full Text:

Section 479 Failure to furnish returns of income