VittSphere ONE Calculators Blog CA Prabhakar Kumar · FCA · ICAI 560762
Case lawIncome-tax Act 2025Chapter XXI › Section 466
Chapter XXIwas s.272AA

Section 466 of the Income-tax Act, 2025

Section 466 — Penalty for failure to comply with the provisions of section 254. Successor to s.272AA of the 1961 Act.

Where this section sits

Section 466 is in Chapter XXI — Penalties, which runs from section 439 to section 472.

← Section 465  ·  Section 467 →

What this section does

A single sentence: where a person fails to comply with the provisions of section 254, the Joint Commissioner, Deputy Director, Assistant Director or Assessing Officer may impose a penalty of up to Rs. 25,000 on him. The ceiling was raised from Rs. 1,000 to Rs. 25,000 by Act No. 4 of 2026 with effect from 1 April 2026.

Why it is there

It backs the section 254 obligation with a monetary sanction, and the twenty-five-fold increase in the ceiling from 1 April 2026 shows the earlier amount was no longer a deterrent.

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
Maximum penalty for failure to comply with section 254Rs. 25,000An upper limit, not a fixed amount — the penalty 'may extend up to' it; substituted for Rs. 1,000 by Act No. 4 of 2026 with effect from 1 April 2026S.466

What this means in practice

The penalty is discretionary and capped, so the officer may impose any amount up to Rs. 25,000; the section fixes no minimum. Four different authorities can impose it, which means the notice may not come from the Assessing Officer. The reasonable cause defence in section 470 expressly covers section 466, so proving reasonable cause for the failure prevents any penalty being imposed.

An example

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

An income-tax authority enters a firm's business premises under section 254 during business hours and requires an employee attending there to furnish the prescribed information; nothing is furnished. The Joint Commissioner may impose a penalty, but Rs. 25,000 is a ceiling and not the charge — the section says the penalty 'may extend up to' that amount, so a smaller sum can be imposed. The figure is also recent: Rs. 25,000 was substituted for Rs. 1,000 by Act No. 4 of 2026 with effect from 1 April 2026, so an earlier default carries the old maximum. And no penalty at all follows if reasonable cause for the failure is proved, section 470 naming section 466 among the provisions it protects.

Where you meet this section

In a penalty order of the Joint Commissioner, Deputy Director, Assistant Director or Assessing Officer, and in the show-cause preceding it, after an entry under section 254 at which the information required was not furnished.

The words themselves

If a person fails to comply with the provisions of section 254, the Joint Commissioner, Deputy Director or Assistant Director or the Assessing Officer, may impose a penalty which may extend up to Rs. 25000 on him.
s.466, 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.

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.