Section 272 — Failure to Give Notice of Discontinuance (Omitted)
Case Laws & Commentary — Income-tax Act, 1961 (as amended by the Finance Act, 2026) — bharattax.co Treatise
Status: Omitted. Section 272 was omitted by the Direct Tax Laws (Amendment) Act, 1987, with effect from 1 April 1989. It formerly penalised the failure to give notice of discontinuance of business/profession under section 176(3). No penalty survives.
Finance Act, 2026: No amendment by the Finance Act, 2026.
Mechanism: Spent. Until 1-4-1989 the section penalised a failure to give the notice of discontinuance required by section 176(3).
Litigation profile: No live litigation; the section is omitted.
A. COMMENTARY
A spent reporting penalty
Section 272 penalised the failure to give the section 176(3) notice of discontinuance of business or profession. It was omitted, along with a cluster of reporting-default penalties, by the Direct Tax Laws (Amendment) Act, 1987 with effect from 1 April 1989. It is reproduced only for the completeness of the Chapter and to explain references in older records.
B. STATUTORY TEXT (verbatim)
Reproduced from the Income-tax Act, 1961 as amended up to the Finance Act, 2025; Finance Act, 2026 changes are noted above.
Failure to give notice of discontinuance.
272. Omitted by the Direct Tax Laws (Amendment) Act, 1987, w.e.f. 1-4-1989.
C. AUTHORITIES
No authority of current value exists; the candour rule applies. The effect of omission is governed by general principle.
1. Effect of omission
General Finance Co. v. ACIT (2002) 257 ITR 338 (SC)
Holding An omitted provision, absent a saving clause, cannot found proceedings for actions taken after the date of omission.
Use Confirms that no section 272 penalty can be levied; cited only to explain the effect of omission.
Prepared for the bharattax.co Treatise on the Income-tax Act, 1961 (as amended by the Finance Act, 2026). Statutory text reproduced from the official Act; case-law holdings are the author’s summaries for professional use.
CHAPTER XXI — PENALTIES IMPOSABLE
Section 272 — Failure to Give Notice of Discontinuance (Omitted)
Case Laws & Commentary — Income-tax Act, 1961 (as amended by the Finance Act, 2026) — bharattax.co Treatise
Status: Omitted. Section 272 was omitted by the Direct Tax Laws (Amendment) Act, 1987, with effect from 1 April 1989. It formerly penalised the failure to give notice of discontinuance of business/profession under section 176(3). No penalty survives.
Finance Act, 2026: No amendment by the Finance Act, 2026.
Mechanism: Spent. Until 1-4-1989 the section penalised a failure to give the notice of discontinuance required by section 176(3).
Litigation profile: No live litigation; the section is omitted.
A. COMMENTARY
A spent reporting penalty
Section 272 penalised the failure to give the section 176(3) notice of discontinuance of business or profession. It was omitted, along with a cluster of reporting-default penalties, by the Direct Tax Laws (Amendment) Act, 1987 with effect from 1 April 1989. It is reproduced only for the completeness of the Chapter and to explain references in older records.
B. STATUTORY TEXT (verbatim)
Reproduced from the Income-tax Act, 1961 as amended up to the Finance Act, 2025; Finance Act, 2026 changes are noted above.
Failure to give notice of discontinuance.
272. Omitted by the Direct Tax Laws (Amendment) Act, 1987, w.e.f. 1-4-1989.
C. AUTHORITIES
No authority of current value exists; the candour rule applies. The effect of omission is governed by general principle.
1. Effect of omission
General Finance Co. v. ACIT (2002) 257 ITR 338 (SC)
Holding An omitted provision, absent a saving clause, cannot found proceedings for actions taken after the date of omission.
Use Confirms that no section 272 penalty can be levied; cited only to explain the effect of omission.
Prepared for the bharattax.co Treatise on the Income-tax Act, 1961 (as amended by the Finance Act, 2026). Statutory text reproduced from the official Act; case-law holdings are the author’s summaries for professional use.