VittSphere ONE Calculators Blog CA Prabhakar Kumar · FCA · ICAI 560762
Case lawIncome-tax Act 2025Chapter XXII › Section 483
Chapter XXIIwas s.277A

Section 483 of the Income-tax Act, 2025

Section 483 — Falsification of books of account or document, etc. Successor to s.277A of the 1961 Act.

Where this section sits

Section 483 is in Chapter XXII — Offences and Prosecutions, which runs from section 473 to section 498.

← Section 482  ·  Section 484 →

What this section does

Sub-section (1) creates the offence. Where a person — the first person — wilfully and with intent to enable another person — the second person — to evade any tax, interest or penalty chargeable or imposable under the Act, makes or causes to be made any entry or statement which is false, and which the first person either knows to be false or does not believe to be true, in any books of account or other document relevant to or useful in any proceedings against the first person or the second person under the Act, the first person is punishable with simple imprisonment for a term up to two years and with fine. Those words of punishment were substituted by Act No. 4 of 2026 with effect from 1 April 2026 for "rigorous imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than three months but which may extend to two years and with fine", so the imprisonment is now simple rather than rigorous and there is no longer a minimum term.

Sub-section (2) removes an element of proof: for establishing the charge under this section it is not necessary to prove that the second person has actually evaded any tax, penalty or interest chargeable or imposable under the Act.

Why it is there

The person who falsifies a record is often not the person who benefits from it, and a prosecution that had to wait for proof that the beneficiary actually evaded tax would rarely get off the ground. The section reaches the maker of the false entry directly and, by sub-section (2), makes the offence complete on the making of the entry with the required intent, whatever became of the second person's assessment.

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 for the offenceSimple imprisonment for a term up to two years, and fineSubstituted by Act No. 4 of 2026 w.e.f. 1-4-2026 for rigorous imprisonment of not less than three months and up to two years with fine; there is now no minimum termSub-section (1)

What this means in practice

The offence sits on a state of mind, not on an outcome. Sub-section (1) requires the act to be wilful and done with intent to enable the second person to evade, and requires the first person either to know the entry is false or not to believe it true — carelessness or a mistaken entry does not meet that description. But once those elements are there, sub-section (2) closes the usual line of defence: the charge does not depend on showing that the second person actually evaded anything. Note also how wide the document limb is — the entry need only be in books of account or another document "relevant to or useful in" a proceeding against either the first or the second person. What changed on 1 April 2026 is the sentence, not the offence: imprisonment is now simple, the two-year ceiling stands, and the three-month floor is gone.

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 supplier issues invoices for goods it never delivered so that a company can claim a deduction, and records the corresponding sales in its own books. The supplier is the first person under sub-section (1) and can be convicted even though the company's deduction is later disallowed and no tax is in fact evaded, because sub-section (2) removes the need to prove actual evasion. For an offence on or after 1 April 2026 the sentence is simple imprisonment up to two years and a fine, with no minimum term.

Where you meet this section

You meet this section in a prosecution launched on the strength of documents gathered in an assessment, a search or a survey — typically against the maker of the entry rather than the taxpayer who claimed the benefit.

The words themselves

simple imprisonment for a term up to two years and with fine
Section 483(1), as substituted by Act No. 4 of 2026 w.e.f. 1-4-2026, Income-tax Act, 2025.
it shall not be necessary to prove that the second person has actually evaded any tax, penalty or interest chargeable or imposable under this Act
Section 483(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.

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 483. 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.
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.