VittSphere ONE Calculators Blog CA Prabhakar Kumar · FCA · ICAI 560762
Case lawIncome-tax Act 2025Chapter XXII › Section 474
Chapter XXIIwas s.275B

Section 474 of the Income-tax Act, 2025

Section 474 — Failure to comply with section 247(1)(ii). Successor to s.275B of the 1961 Act.

Where this section sits

Section 474 is in Chapter XXII — Offences and Prosecutions, which runs from section 473 to section 498.

← Section 473  ·  Section 475 →

What this section does

The section creates one offence. A person who is required to afford the authorised officer the necessary facility to inspect the books of account or other documents under section 247(1)(ii), and fails to do so, is punishable with simple imprisonment for a term up to six months, or with fine, or with both. That punishment was substituted by Act No. 4 of 2026 with effect from 1 April 2026; before the substitution the punishment was rigorous imprisonment for a term which may extend to two years, with a mandatory fine in addition.

Why it is there

The power to inspect books and documents during a search under section 247 depends on the person in control of them cooperating at that moment, and the material can be made inaccessible in the time an enforcement dispute would take. The offence supplies an immediate sanction for that refusal. The 2026 substitution reduces its severity considerably.

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 term of imprisonmentSimple imprisonment for a term up to six monthsSubstituted by Act No. 4 of 2026 w.e.f. 1-4-2026 for "rigorous imprisonment for a term which may extend to two years and shall also be liable to fine"; imprisonment, fine, or both may be imposedSection 474

What this means in practice

The offence is failure to afford the facility to inspect, not failure to produce or hand over — the duty is the one in section 247(1)(ii). Three points follow from the substituted punishment: the imprisonment is simple, not rigorous; six months is a ceiling, since the words are "up to six months"; and fine is now an alternative to imprisonment rather than a mandatory addition, because the substituted text reads "or with fine, or with both" where the earlier text made the offender also liable to fine. A prosecution is in any event subject to the sanction requirement in section 491(1).

An example

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

During a search, the authorised officer asks the person in control of a business premises to give him access to the accounting records kept there so that he may inspect them under section 247(1)(ii), and the person refuses to open them. On conviction, the punishment under the substituted text is simple imprisonment which may extend to six months, or a fine, or both — where, before 1 April 2026, the same refusal carried rigorous imprisonment extending to two years and a fine in addition.

Where you meet this section

You meet this only as a criminal prosecution launched after a search, and not before it: section 491(1) bars a person from being proceeded against under this section except with the previous sanction of the Principal Commissioner or Commissioner or Commissioner (Appeals) or Joint Commissioner (Appeals).

The words themselves

simple imprisonment for a term up to six months, or with fine, or with both
Section 474, as substituted by Act No. 4 of 2026 w.e.f. 1-4-2026, Income-tax Act, 2025.
If a person, who is required to afford the authorised officer with the necessary facility to inspect the books of account or other documents, under section 247(1)(ii), fails to do so
Section 474, 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 474. 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.