VittSphere ONE Calculators Blog CA Prabhakar Kumar · FCA · ICAI 560762
Case lawIncome-tax Act 2025Chapter XXI › Section 448
Chapter XXIwas s.271C

Section 448 of the Income-tax Act, 2025

Section 448 — Penalty for failure to deduct tax at source. Successor to s.271C of the 1961 Act.

Where this section sits

Section 448 is in Chapter XXI — Penalties, which runs from section 439 to section 472.

← Section 447  ·  Section 449 →

What this section does

The section creates one penalty for two kinds of failure. Clause (a) covers a failure to deduct the whole or any part of the tax required under Chapter XIX-B. Clause (b) covers a failure to pay, or to ensure the payment of, the whole or any part of the tax required by or under Note 2 below the Table in section 393(3), or Note 6 to section 393(1) (Table: Sl. No. 8).

Where either failure occurs, the Assessing Officer may impose on the person a penalty equal to the tax which he failed to deduct or to pay or to ensure payment of.

Why it is there

Deduction at source works only if the person required to deduct actually does so, and the tax itself can be recovered from him in any event, so a sanction is needed that costs something beyond the tax. Setting the penalty at the amount not deducted or not paid makes the failure as expensive as the obligation, and clause (b) extends the same exposure to the two situations where the duty is to pay or ensure payment rather than to deduct.

Who it applies to

The figures, and what each one turns on

Read the condition in the same row. A figure quoted without it is a wrong answer with a citation attached.
WhatFigureThe condition on itWhere
Amount of the penaltyEqual to the tax which the person failed to deduct or pay or ensure payment ofImposable by the Assessing Officer; the section says "may impose", so the imposition is discretionary while the amount is fixed at that equalityClosing words of the section

What this means in practice

The amount is not a range. Once the Assessing Officer decides to impose, the penalty is equal to the tax not deducted or not paid, so the argument has to be made against imposition rather than against quantum, and the discretion in the word "may" is the officer's. A partial failure is enough: both clauses reach a failure to deduct or pay "the whole or any part" of the tax, so short deduction is caught as squarely as no deduction. Clause (b) is a distinct exposure that is easy to overlook, because the duty there is to pay or ensure payment under two specific Notes rather than to deduct anything.

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 company was required under Chapter XIX-B to deduct Rs. 4 lakh from payments made during a tax year and deducted only Rs. 1 lakh. The failure is of part of the tax, which clause (a) covers, and the Assessing Officer may impose a penalty equal to the Rs. 3 lakh not deducted. That penalty is separate from the tax itself, which remains recoverable, and the amount cannot be scaled down — the only question open is whether the penalty is imposed at all.

Where you meet this section

In a penalty notice and order from the Assessing Officer, usually following an order or demand arising from a tax deduction at source default; it is addressed to the deductor, not to the person whose income was to bear the tax.

The words themselves

the Assessing Officer may impose on him, a penalty equal to the tax which such person failed to deduct or pay or ensure payment of
Section 448, Income-tax Act, 2025.
deduct the whole or any part of the tax as required under Chapter XIX-B
Section 448(a), 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.

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 448. 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.

Explainers

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.