VittSphere ONE Calculators Blog CA Prabhakar Kumar · FCA · ICAI 560762
Case lawIncome-tax Act 2025Chapter XXII › Section 477
Chapter XXIIwas s.276BB

Section 477 of the Income-tax Act, 2025

Section 477 — Failure to pay tax collected at source. Successor to s.276BB of the 1961 Act.

Where this section sits

Section 477 is in Chapter XXII — Offences and Prosecutions, which runs from section 473 to section 498.

← Section 476  ·  Section 478 →

What this section does

Sub-section (1), as substituted by Act No. 4 of 2026 with effect from 1 April 2026, makes it an offence for a person to fail to pay the tax collected by him to the credit of the Central Government as required under section 397(3)(a), and grades the punishment by amount. Under clause (a), where the amount of such tax exceeds fifty lakh rupees, the punishment is simple imprisonment for a term up to two years, or fine, or both. Under clause (b), where it exceeds ten lakh rupees but does not exceed fifty lakh rupees, the punishment is simple imprisonment for a term up to six months, or fine, or both. Under clause (c), in any other case, the punishment is fine. Before the substitution, sub-section (1) prescribed rigorous imprisonment for a term of not less than three months extending to seven years, and fine, without reference to the amount involved.

Sub-section (2) provides that the section shall not apply if the payment of the tax collected at source has been made to the credit of the Central Government on or before the time prescribed for filing the statement under section 397(3)(b) in respect of that payment.

Why it is there

Tax collected at source is money held for the Government, and failure to pay it over is treated as an offence rather than a mere default. The 2026 substitution replaces a single mandatory minimum sentence with a graded scale keyed to the amount withheld, so that a small default is met with a fine and only a large one carries the risk of imprisonment; sub-section (2) leaves the door open for a collector who pays up before the statement is due.

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
Punishment where the tax exceeds fifty lakh rupeesSimple imprisonment for a term up to two years, or fine, or bothAmount of tax collected and not paid to the credit of the Central Government exceeds fifty lakh rupees; the term is a maximum, and there is no minimumSub-section (1)(a), as substituted by Act No. 4 of 2026 w.e.f. 1-4-2026
Punishment where the tax exceeds ten lakh but not fifty lakh rupeesSimple imprisonment for a term up to six months, or fine, or bothAmount of tax collected and not paid exceeds ten lakh rupees but does not exceed fifty lakh rupeesSub-section (1)(b), as substituted by Act No. 4 of 2026 w.e.f. 1-4-2026
Punishment in any other caseFineWhere the amount is ten lakh rupees or less; no imprisonment is providedSub-section (1)(c), as substituted by Act No. 4 of 2026 w.e.f. 1-4-2026

What this means in practice

The offence is not the collection or the shortfall but the failure to pay over what was collected, and sub-section (2) gives a complete answer: if the amount reached the credit of the Central Government on or before the time prescribed for filing the section 397(3)(b) statement for that payment, the section does not apply at all. The bands are measured on the tax collected and unpaid, and the terms are ceilings — "up to" two years and "up to" six months — with no minimum sentence and with fine available as an alternative in clauses (a) and (b). This is the substance of the 2026 change: the earlier text required rigorous imprisonment of not less than three months and up to seven years, and fine, in every case regardless of amount, so a prosecution decided on the old text will read very differently from one decided on the live provision.

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 collects Rs. 62 lakh of tax at source over a quarter and does not deposit it. Because the amount exceeds fifty lakh rupees, clause (1)(a) applies and the exposure is simple imprisonment of up to two years, or fine, or both. Had the amount been Rs. 8 lakh, clause (1)(c) would apply and the punishment would be fine only. Either way, sub-section (2) removes the offence entirely if the money was paid to the credit of the Central Government on or before the time prescribed for filing the section 397(3)(b) statement.

Where you meet this section

This is not a notice but a prosecution complaint, launched where tax collected at source has not reached the Government. In practice the first line of defence is sub-section (2) — proof that the payment was made on or before the time prescribed for the section 397(3)(b) statement.

The words themselves

with simple imprisonment for a term up to two years, or with fine, or with both, where the amount of such tax exceeds fifty lakh rupees
Section 477(1)(a), as substituted by Act No. 4 of 2026 w.e.f. 1-4-2026, Income-tax Act, 2025.
with simple imprisonment for a term up to six months or with fine, or with both, where the amount of such tax exceeds ten lakh rupees but does not exceed fifty lakh rupees
Section 477(1)(b), as substituted by Act No. 4 of 2026 w.e.f. 1-4-2026, Income-tax Act, 2025.
The provisions of this section shall not apply if the payment of the tax collected at source has been made to the credit of the Central Government on or before the time prescribed for filing the statement under section 397(3)(b) in respect of such payment.
Section 477(2), 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.

Circulars of the Board on this section

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.

See the circulars index.

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 477. 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.