VittSphere ONE Calculators Blog CA Prabhakar Kumar · FCA · ICAI 560762
Case lawIncome-tax Act 2025Chapter XIX › Section 414
Chapter XIXwas s.223

Section 414 of the Income-tax Act, 2025

Section 414 — Tax Recovery Officer by whom recovery is to be effected. Successor to s.223 of the 1961 Act.

Where this section sits

Section 414 is in Chapter XIX — Collection and Recovery of Tax, which runs from section 390 to section 430.

← Section 413  ·  Section 415 →

What this section does

Sub-section (1) identifies the Tax Recovery Officer competent to act under section 413: the officer in whose jurisdiction the assessee carries on business or profession or has his principal place of business or profession, or the officer in whose jurisdiction the assessee resides or any of his movable or immovable property is situated, jurisdiction being that assigned under Board orders or directions, or by an income-tax authority of at least Commissioner rank authorised by the Board under section 241. Sub-section (2) deals with property spread across jurisdictions: where the officer who drew up the certificate cannot recover the whole amount from property within his own jurisdiction, or thinks it necessary to expedite or secure recovery, he may send the certificate, or a certified copy specifying the amount where only part is to be recovered, to a Tax Recovery Officer under clause (1)(b), who then proceeds as if he had drawn up the certificate himself.

Why it is there

Recovery has to follow the assets, so the section supplies more than one competent officer and a mechanism for transferring the certificate when property lies elsewhere. Deeming the receiving officer to have drawn up the certificate saves fresh proceedings being started from scratch.

Who it applies to

What this means in practice

Jurisdiction here is a practical question of where you carry on business, where you live and where your property is — an objection that the certificate came from the wrong officer has to be tested against both limbs of sub-section (1), not just the assessing jurisdiction. Property in another state does not put it beyond reach: the certificate or a certified copy for a part amount can be sent on, and the receiving officer's proceedings stand as though the certificate were his own. This is machinery for the department; it creates no separate liability for the assessee beyond the amount in the certificate.

An example

Illustrative only, and invented for this page. The figures are chosen to show the rule biting, not taken from any real matter.

A certificate for Rs. 2 crore is drawn up against a firm by the Tax Recovery Officer in whose jurisdiction its principal place of business lies, but sale of the property there realises only Rs. 80 lakh; the firm owns a building in another officer’s jurisdiction. Sub-section (2) lets the first officer send that officer a copy of the certificate, certified in the prescribed manner and specifying the Rs. 1.2 crore still to be recovered, and the receiving officer then proceeds as if he had drawn up the certificate himself — no fresh certificate and no starting again. He need not even wait for the shortfall: sub-section (2)(b) lets the certificate go across whenever the first officer thinks it necessary to expedite or secure recovery. And more than one officer may be competent to begin with, since sub-section (1) offers business or principal place of business, residence, and the situation of movable or immovable property as alternatives.

Where you meet this section

In recovery proceedings following a certificate under section 413 — an assessee typically meets it when a Tax Recovery Officer other than the one who drew up the certificate starts acting against property in a different place. Which officer is competent turns on the jurisdiction assigned by the Board’s orders or directions, or by an income-tax authority not below the rank of Commissioner authorised by the Board under section 241.

The words themselves

such officer shall also proceed to recover the amount under this Part as if the certificate or copy thereof had been drawn up by him
s.414(2), Income-tax Act, 2025.

What people get wrong

What this replaced

The correspondence is the Income Tax Department’s own, from its comparison utility for the 1961 and 2025 Acts. A renumbering is the easy half; whether the words changed is the half that decides cases.

See the full 1961 to 2025 concordance.

Rules that serve this section

Rules of the Income-tax Rules, 2026 that work section 414. Where the rule’s own heading names the section we say so; the rest are marked on reading the rule, which is our derivation and not the department’s. A rule that serves the section silently and that we have missed will not appear here.

All of them are in the Rules 2026 index.

Case law carried across

Read this before you rely on it. Every decision below was decided under the Income-tax Act, 1961. It appears here because it is tagged to a 1961 provision that the department’s own mapping carries to section 414. That is an inference we have drawn, not a holding on the new section: where the words changed in the move, the reasoning may not survive. Treat this as the place to start looking, not as authority on the 2025 Act.

Read with

What this page does not tell you. It does not reproduce the section. Everything above was written from the section’s own text as the Income Tax Department publishes it — the text is here, and nothing here is advice on your facts. Where a figure matters, read the sub-section it comes from.