Section 462 — Penalty for failure to furnish information or furnishing inaccurate information under section 397(3)(d). Successor to s.271 of the 1961 Act.
The section penalises a single reporting default. If a person who is required to furnish information under section 397(3)(d) fails to furnish that information, or furnishes inaccurate information, the Assessing Officer may impose a penalty of Rs. 100000 on him. Section 397(3)(d) is the obligation on every person responsible for paying to a non-resident, not being a company, or to a foreign company, any sum — whether or not chargeable under the Act — to furnish the information relating to the payment of that sum, in the form and manner prescribed.
Why it is there
Information about sums paid out of India is the Department's only systematic view of remittances, and it is collected before anyone has decided whether the sum is taxable. That is why the obligation in section 397(3)(d) does not depend on chargeability; and an obligation of that kind needs a penalty of its own, because a payer who thinks the sum is not taxable has no other reason to report it.
Who it applies to
Every person responsible for paying to a non-resident, not being a company, or to a foreign company, any sum covered by section 397(3)(d)
The Assessing Officer imposing the penalty
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.
What
Figure
The condition on it
Where
Penalty for failure to furnish, or furnishing inaccurate, information
Rs. 100000
Where a person required to furnish information under section 397(3)(d) fails to furnish it or furnishes inaccurate information; the Assessing Officer "may impose" it
Section 462
What this means in practice
Two defaults, one amount. The section treats failing to furnish and furnishing inaccurate information alike, so filing on time is not by itself an answer if what was filed is wrong. The obligation it enforces is not conditional on tax being due — section 397(3)(d) reaches a sum paid to a non-resident "whether or not chargeable under this Act", so a payer who concludes there is no Indian tax on a remittance still has to report it, and the view he took on chargeability is no defence to this penalty. The penalty is discretionary in form: the Assessing Officer "may impose" it.
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 remits 60 lakh rupees to a foreign supplier and, taking the view that the sum is not chargeable in India, furnishes no information under section 397(3)(d). Because the obligation covers a sum whether or not it is chargeable, the Assessing Officer may impose the Rs. 100000 penalty under this section even if the remittance is ultimately found not to be taxable. The same penalty is available if the company had filed the information but got the payee or the amount wrong.
Where you meet this section
In a penalty order from the Assessing Officer, usually raised after remittances are compared with the information actually furnished for payments to non-residents.
The words themselves
If any person, who is required to furnish information under section 397(3)(d), fails to furnish such information, or furnishes inaccurate information, the Assessing Officer may impose a penalty of Rs. 100000 on such person.
Section 462, Income-tax Act, 2025.
What people get wrong
Assuming no information is needed where the remittance is not taxable. Section 397(3)(d) covers a sum paid to a non-resident "whether or not chargeable under this Act".
Assuming a timely filing is enough. The section penalises furnishing inaccurate information on the same footing as failing to furnish it.
Treating the penalty as automatic. The Assessing Officer "may impose" it.
Applying it to payments to a resident, or to a non-resident company outside section 397(3)(d). The obligation is on a person paying to a non-resident not being a company, or to a foreign company.
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.
271-I - Penalty for failure to furnish information or furnishing inaccurate information under section 195
A circular binds the department, not you and not a court. Every one below was written under the 1961 Act; it reaches this section because the department’s own concordance carries the provision it names to this one.
Circular No. 32/2019 — Clarifications in respect of prescribed electronic modes under section 269SU of the income tax act 1961 2019-12-30
Circular No. 5/2018 — Clarification on the immunity provided u/s 270AA of the income tax act 1961 2018-08-16
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 462. 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.
CIT v Atul Mohan BindalSupreme CourtCuts both waystagged s.271(1)(c) Is penalty under s.271(1)(c) criminal, quasi-criminal or civil?
CIT v Jai Laxmi Rice MillsSupreme CourtHelps taxpayertagged s.271(1)(c) The assessment in which the s.271E satisfaction was recorded has been set aside. Can the penalty stand?
CIT v Reliance Petroproducts Pvt LtdSupreme CourtHelps taxpayertagged s.271(1)(c) The officer disallowed your claim. Does a disallowance automatically bring penalty with it?
CIT v SSA's Emerald MeadowsSupreme CourtHelps taxpayertagged s.271(1)(c) The penalty notice does not say whether I concealed income or filed inaccurate particulars. Does that matter?
CIT v Vegetable Products LtdSupreme CourtHelps taxpayertagged s.271(1)(a)(i) The provision can be read two ways. Which reading wins?
Chuharmal v CITSupreme CourtHelps departmenttagged s.271(1)(c) Valuables were found at my premises and I say they are not mine. Who has to prove ownership?
Dilip N. Shroff v JCITSupreme CourtHelps taxpayertagged s.271(1)(c) Is a valuation you put on an asset 'inaccurate particulars' if the officer disagrees with it?
K.C. Builders v ACITSupreme CourtHelps taxpayertagged s.271(1)(c) The Tribunal cancelled my concealment penalty. Can the 276C prosecution still continue?
K.P. Madhusudhanan v CITSupreme CourtHelps departmenttagged s.271(1)(c) Must the officer say in the notice that he is invoking Explanation 1?
MAK Data P Ltd v CITSupreme CourtHelps departmenttagged s.271(1)(c) You surrendered the amount to buy peace and avoid litigation. Does that stop the penalty?
PCIT v LG Electronics India Pvt LtdSupreme CourtHelps departmenttagged s.271(1)(c) Is 20% of the disputed demand a fixed price for a stay, or can the officer take less?
Price Waterhouse Coopers Pvt Ltd v CITSupreme CourtHelps taxpayertagged s.271(1)(c) You forgot to add back something your own audit report flagged. Is that concealment?
CIT v Mohair Investment & Trading CoHigh CourtHelps departmenttagged s.271(1)(c) The CIT(A) order came two years ago but the appeal is still in the Tribunal. Is the penalty already time-barred?
PCIT v Colo Colour P LtdHigh CourtHelps taxpayertagged s.271(1)(c) The AO added 12.5 per cent of my alleged bogus purchases and I agreed to it to close the matter. Can he now levy penalty under section 271(1)(c)?
PCIT v Prabodh Kumar TiwariHigh CourtHelps taxpayertagged s.271(1)(b) The department says the section 278E presumption means I must face the whole trial. Has any court actually held the presumption rebutted, and on what…
Prakash v ITOHigh CourtHelps departmenttagged s.271(1)(a) I paid for the new house but it's in my son's name. Can I still claim 54F?
Sundaram Finance Ltd v ACITHigh CourtHelps departmenttagged s.271(1)(c) The notice did not specify the default, but you clearly understood it. Does the defect still help you?
Suresh Kumar Agarwal v Union of IndiaHigh CourtHelps taxpayertagged s.271(1)(a) I filed my section 153A return late but with tax and interest, the additions were later deleted in appeal and no penalty was ever levied. Can the…
Vijay Television P Ltd v DRPHigh CourtHelps taxpayertagged s.271(1)(c) The AO skipped the draft order and passed a final one. Can a corrigendum cure that?
Haresh Ghanshyamdas Makhija v ITOITATHelps taxpayertagged s.271(1)(c) They already penalised me under 271A for keeping no books. Can they levy 271B on top?
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.