VittSphere ONE Calculators Blog CA Prabhakar Kumar · FCA · ICAI 560762
Case lawIncome-tax Act 2025Chapter XXI › Section 461
Chapter XXIwas s.271H

Section 461 of the Income-tax Act, 2025

Section 461 — Penalty for failure to furnish statements, etc. Successor to s.271H of the 1961 Act.

Where this section sits

Section 461 is in Chapter XXI — Penalties, which runs from section 439 to section 472.

← Section 460  ·  Section 462 →

What this section does

Sub-section (1) allows the Assessing Officer to impose a penalty on a person required to deliver, or cause to be delivered, the statement prescribed in section 397(3)(b) where he fails to do so within the time prescribed in that section, or furnishes incorrect information in the statement. The penalty is a sum which shall not be less than Rs 10,000 but which may extend to Rs 1,00,000.

Sub-section (2) bars a penalty under sub-section (1)(a) for delay in filing or non-filing if the person proves that the tax deducted or collected, along with the fee and interest if any, was paid to the credit of the Central Government, and that the statement was also delivered before the expiry of one month from the time prescribed in section 397(3)(b).

Why it is there

The statement under section 397(3)(b) is how deducted or collected tax is matched to the person whose income it relates to, so a late or wrong statement leaves credit unavailable to someone else. The range gives the Assessing Officer room to distinguish a slip from a persistent default, and sub-section (2) removes the penalty entirely from a deductor who has both paid the money over and filed within a month.

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
Minimum penaltyRs 10,000The penalty shall not be less than this amountSub-section (1)
Maximum penaltyRs 1,00,000The penalty may extend to this amountSub-section (1)
Grace period for the sub-section (2) reliefOne monthThe statement must be delivered before the expiry of one month from the time prescribed in section 397(3)(b), and the tax with fee and interest must have been paid to the credit of the Central GovernmentSub-section (2)(b)

What this means in practice

Rs 10,000 is the floor of a range, not the penalty, and the Assessing Officer may go up to Rs 1,00,000. The relief in sub-section (2) is narrower than it looks in two ways: it answers only a sub-section (1)(a) default, so incorrect information remains exposed to the full range, and it requires both conditions together. Paying the tax over is not enough without filing inside the month, and filing inside the month is not enough unless the tax, along with the fee and interest if any, has been paid to the credit of the Central Government. The month runs from the time prescribed in section 397(3)(b), not from any notice.

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 deductor files its statement three weeks after the prescribed time, having already paid the tax deducted with the fee and interest. Sub-section (2) bars the penalty altogether. If that same statement carried wrong particulars, sub-section (2) would not help — it protects only against a sub-section (1)(a) default — and a penalty of between Rs 10,000 and Rs 1,00,000 would remain available under sub-section (1)(b).

Where you meet this section

In a penalty notice from the Assessing Officer following a late or defective statement under section 397(3)(b). The sub-section (2) defence is made out by producing the challans for tax, fee and interest and the date the statement was actually delivered.

The words themselves

a penalty of a sum which shall not be less than Rs. 10000 but which may extend to Rs. 100000
Section 461(1), Income-tax Act, 2025.
the said statement was also delivered or cause to be delivered before the expiry of one month from the time prescribed in section 397(3)(b)
Section 461(2)(b), 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 461. 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.