Section 272A(1)(d) of the Income Tax Act
Income-tax Act, 2025: s.465
Section 272A(1)(d) falls under section 272A of the Income-tax Act, 1961, which corresponds to section 465 (Penalty for failure to answer questions, sign statements, Furnish information, returns or statements, allow inspections, etc) of the Income-tax Act, 2025.
Read section 465 of the 2025 Act
Correspondence checked against the ICAI tabular mapping of the two Acts and the BharatTax.co section commentary.
The decision most relied on for Section 272A(1)(d) is Hindustan Steel Ltd. v. State of Orissa (83 ITR 26), cited in 502 of the 1,125 judgments on BharatTax that turn on this section.
Leading authorities on Section 272A(1)(d)
An order imposing penalty for failure to carry out a statutory obligation results from quasi-criminal proceedings. Penalty is not ordinarily imposed unless the party acted deliberately in defiance of law, was guilty of contumacious or dishonest conduct, or acted in conscious disregard of their obligation.
The Assessing Officer must record clear satisfaction in the assessment order that the assessee concealed particulars of income or furnished inaccurate particulars, for initiating penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c). Without such recorded satisfaction, the penalty proceedings lack jurisdiction and are unsustainable in law.
The opportunity of hearing provided to an assessee must be real, effective, and realistic, not merely notional, and tax authorities are incumbent to decide cases on their merits after affording due opportunity.
Reassessment notices under Section 148A, issued in the context of faceless assessment proceedings, must be issued by the designated Faceless Assessing Officer and not by a Jurisdictional Assessing Officer.
To levy a penalty under section 271(1)(b), the Assessing Officer (AO) must record satisfaction in the assessment order. Mere initiation of penalty proceedings without such recorded satisfaction does not confer jurisdiction on the AO to levy the penalty.
Where the National Faceless Assessment Centre (NFAC) and the Joint Assessing Officer (JAO) have concurrent jurisdiction, a notice issued by the JAO under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act is valid, provided no prejudice is caused to the assessee.
The Commissioner is justified in invoking revisionary powers under Section 263 if the Assessing Officer failed to properly consider the issues at hand, leaving loose ends in the assessment.
Revision under Section 263 is justified when the Assessing Officer fails to consider a significant portion of a claim, such as depreciation, leading to an erroneous assessment that is prejudicial to the revenue.
