Section 272A — Penalty for Failure to Answer Questions, Sign Statements, Furnish Information, Returns or Statements, Allow Inspections, Etc.
Case Laws & Commentary — Income-tax Act, 1961 (as amended by the Finance Act, 2026) — bharattax.co Treatise
Status: Live and widely invoked. A composite provision: sub-section (1) penalises refusals/failures of a quasi-judicial character (refusing to answer questions, to sign statements taken on oath, to attend/give evidence under summons under section 131, and — clause (d) — failure to comply with a notice under section 142(1)/143(2) or a direction under section 142(2A)) with Rs. 10,000 for each default; sub-section (2) penalises a range of reporting/compliance failures at Rs. 500 (now generally Rs. 100/Rs. 500) per day. Subject to reasonable cause under section 273B.
Finance Act, 2026: No amendment by the Finance Act, 2026.
Mechanism: Sub-section (1): refusal to answer, sign a sworn statement, or comply with a section 131 summons, or (clause (d)) failure to comply with section 142(1)/143(2)/142(2A) → Rs. 10,000 for each default. Sub-section (2): enumerated reporting failures → per-day penalty. All subject to reasonable cause under section 273B.
Litigation profile: Heavily litigated, especially clause (1)(d) (non-compliance with section 142(1)/143(2)). Settled themes: per-default versus per-day computation; the effect of subsequent compliance and completion of assessment under section 143(3); first-default versus repeated-default; and the reasonable-cause defence.
A. COMMENTARY
A composite penalty for non-cooperation and reporting failures
Section 272A is the Act’s general penalty for failures of cooperation with the assessment machinery. Sub-section (1) addresses conduct touching the quasi-judicial process — refusing to answer questions, to sign a statement recorded on oath, or to comply with a section 131 summons — and, by clause (d), the failure to comply with a notice under section 142(1) or 143(2) or a direction under section 142(2A); each such default attracts Rs. 10,000. Sub-section (2) addresses a list of reporting/filing failures with a per-day penalty.
Clause (1)(d): subsequent compliance and completion of assessment
The most litigated limb is clause (1)(d) for non-compliance with section 142(1) notices. A strong Tribunal line holds that where the assessee ultimately participated and the assessment was completed under section 143(3) (a non-best-judgment order), the earlier non-compliance is, in substance, condoned and the per-notice penalty should not be mechanically levied; and that the penalty, if any, attaches to the first default rather than being multiplied across every subsequent notice. Subsequent compliance and a bona fide explanation are strong mitigating factors.
Reasonable cause and proportionality
Section 272A is within section 273B. Genuine reasons for non-attendance or delayed compliance — illness, non-receipt of the notice, professional/representative lapse, conflicting summons — constitute reasonable cause. Given the "Rs. 10,000 for each default" and per-day structures, Tribunals insist on proportionate, non-mechanical application and a clear identification of each default penalised.
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.
Penalty for failure to answer questions, sign statements, etc.
272A. (1) If any person,—
(a) being legally bound to state the truth of any matter touching the subject of his assessment, refuses
to answer any question put to him by an income-tax authority in the exercise of its powers under
this Act; or
(b) refuses to sign any statement made by him in the course of any proceedings under this Act, which
an income-tax authority may legally require him to sign; or
(c) to whom a summons is issued under sub-section (1) of section 131 either to attend to give evidence
or produce books of account or other documents at a certain place and time omits to attend or
produce books of account or documents at the place or time; or
(d) fails to comply with a notice under sub-section (1) of section 142 or sub-section (2) of section 143
or fails to comply with a direction issued under sub-section (2A) of section 142,
he shall pay, by way of penalty, a sum of ten thousand rupees for each such default or failure.
(2) If any person fails—
(a) to comply with a notice issued under sub-section (6) of section 94; or
(b) to give the notice of discontinuance of his business or profession as required by sub-section (3) of
he shall pay, by way of penalty, a sum of five hundred rupees for every day during which the failure
continues:
Provided that the amount of penalty for failures in relation to a declaration mentioned in section 197A, a
certificate as required by section 203 and returns under sections 206 and 206C and statements under
sub-section (2A) or sub-section (3) of section 200 or the proviso to sub-section (3) or under sub-section (3A)
of section 206C shall not exceed the amount of tax deductible or collectible, as the case may be:
Provided further that no penalty shall be levied under this section for the failure referred to in clause (k), if
such failure relates to a statement referred to in sub-section (3) of section 200 or the proviso to sub-section
(3) of section 206C which is to be delivered or caused to be delivered for tax deducted at source or tax
collected at source, as the case may be, on or after the 1st day of July, 2012.
(3) Any penalty imposable under sub-section (1) or sub-section (2) shall be imposed—
(a) in a case where the contravention, failure or default in respect of which such penalty is imposable
occurs in the course of any proceeding before an income-tax authority not lower in rank than a
Joint Director or a Joint Commissioner, by such income-tax authority;
(aa) in a case falling under clause (d) of sub-section (1), by the income-tax authority who had issued the
notice or direction referred to therein;
(b) in a case falling under clause (f) of sub-section (2), by the Principal Chief Commissioner or Chief
Commissioner or Principal Commissioner or Commissioner; and
(c) in any other case, by the Joint Director or the Joint Commissioner.
(4) No order under this section shall be passed by any income-tax authority referred to in sub-section (3)
unless the person on whom the penalty is proposed to be imposed is given an opportunity of being heard in
the matter by such authority.
Explanation.—In this section, "income-tax authority" includes a Principal Director General or Director
General, Principal Director or Director, Joint Director and an Assistant Director or Deputy Director while
exercising the powers vested in a court under the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (5 of 1908), when trying a
suit in respect of the matters specified in sub-section (1) of section 131.
C. AUTHORITIES
The authorities are largely from the Tribunal and concern clause (1)(d) (non-compliance with section 142(1)/143(2)), the effect of subsequent compliance and completion of assessment under section 143(3), the first-default rule, and the section 273B reasonable-cause defence.
1. Subsequent compliance and completion under section 143(3)
Holding Where the assessment was completed under section 143(3) (not best-judgment under section 144) and subsequent compliance was treated as good compliance, the earlier defaults are ignored; penalty for non-compliance is not warranted.
Use The leading Tribunal authority that participation culminating in a 143(3) order condones earlier default.
Principle — assessment framed on merits condones the default (ITAT Cochin and other benches)
Proposition Where the assessee ultimately furnished the details and the assessment was completed under section 143(3), the section 272A(1)(d) penalty ought not to be mechanically levied.
Use The principal defence where the assessee eventually participated.
Principle — bona fide non-appearance to an e-notice (ITAT Mumbai)
Proposition Non-appearance in response to a notice issued electronically under section 142(1), where bona fide (e.g., the notice was not effectively received/seen), is a bona fide mistake constituting reasonable cause.
Use Reasonable-cause defence in the faceless/e-notice context.
2. The first-default rule and reasonable cause
Mansi Rameshbhai Vaghasiya v. DCIT (ITAT Surat, ITA No. 401/SRT/2022)
Holding Penalty under section 272A(1)(d) must be restricted to the first default; it cannot be multiplied for each successive notice issued for the same default.
Use Caps the quantum where multiple section 142(1) notices issued for the same default.
Chudaji Thakor v. ITO (ITAT Ahmedabad)
Holding Where the assessee demonstrated reasonable cause under section 273B for non-compliance with section 142(1) notices, the section 272A(1)(d) penalty was deleted.
Use Tribunal authority applying the section 273B reasonable-cause shelter.
Proposition Genuine technological illiteracy or the negligence of a tax consultant, bona fide established, has been accepted as reasonable cause, deleting the section 272A(1)(d) penalty (ITAT).
Use Fact-based reasonable-cause defences recognised by the benches.
3. Discretion and the correct authority
Hindustan Steel Ltd v. State of Orissa (1972) 83 ITR 26 (SC)
Holding Penalty for a technical/venial or bona fide default ought not to be imposed; discretion is to be exercised judicially.
Use The bedrock authority against mechanical levy under section 272A.
Principle — penalty by the authority who issued the notice/direction
Proposition The penalty is to be imposed by the income-tax authority that issued the relevant notice/direction; a jurisdictional defect or failure to identify the precise default vitiates the levy.
Use Jurisdictional/procedural defence to a mis-framed 272A order.
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 272A — Penalty for Failure to Answer Questions, Sign Statements, Furnish Information, Returns or Statements, Allow Inspections, Etc.
Case Laws & Commentary — Income-tax Act, 1961 (as amended by the Finance Act, 2026) — bharattax.co Treatise
Status: Live and widely invoked. A composite provision: sub-section (1) penalises refusals/failures of a quasi-judicial character (refusing to answer questions, to sign statements taken on oath, to attend/give evidence under summons under section 131, and — clause (d) — failure to comply with a notice under section 142(1)/143(2) or a direction under section 142(2A)) with Rs. 10,000 for each default; sub-section (2) penalises a range of reporting/compliance failures at Rs. 500 (now generally Rs. 100/Rs. 500) per day. Subject to reasonable cause under section 273B.
Finance Act, 2026: No amendment by the Finance Act, 2026.
Mechanism: Sub-section (1): refusal to answer, sign a sworn statement, or comply with a section 131 summons, or (clause (d)) failure to comply with section 142(1)/143(2)/142(2A) → Rs. 10,000 for each default. Sub-section (2): enumerated reporting failures → per-day penalty. All subject to reasonable cause under section 273B.
Litigation profile: Heavily litigated, especially clause (1)(d) (non-compliance with section 142(1)/143(2)). Settled themes: per-default versus per-day computation; the effect of subsequent compliance and completion of assessment under section 143(3); first-default versus repeated-default; and the reasonable-cause defence.
A. COMMENTARY
A composite penalty for non-cooperation and reporting failures
Section 272A is the Act’s general penalty for failures of cooperation with the assessment machinery. Sub-section (1) addresses conduct touching the quasi-judicial process — refusing to answer questions, to sign a statement recorded on oath, or to comply with a section 131 summons — and, by clause (d), the failure to comply with a notice under section 142(1) or 143(2) or a direction under section 142(2A); each such default attracts Rs. 10,000. Sub-section (2) addresses a list of reporting/filing failures with a per-day penalty.
Clause (1)(d): subsequent compliance and completion of assessment
The most litigated limb is clause (1)(d) for non-compliance with section 142(1) notices. A strong Tribunal line holds that where the assessee ultimately participated and the assessment was completed under section 143(3) (a non-best-judgment order), the earlier non-compliance is, in substance, condoned and the per-notice penalty should not be mechanically levied; and that the penalty, if any, attaches to the first default rather than being multiplied across every subsequent notice. Subsequent compliance and a bona fide explanation are strong mitigating factors.
Reasonable cause and proportionality
Section 272A is within section 273B. Genuine reasons for non-attendance or delayed compliance — illness, non-receipt of the notice, professional/representative lapse, conflicting summons — constitute reasonable cause. Given the "Rs. 10,000 for each default" and per-day structures, Tribunals insist on proportionate, non-mechanical application and a clear identification of each default penalised.
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.
Penalty for failure to answer questions, sign statements, etc.
272A. (1) If any person,—
(a) being legally bound to state the truth of any matter touching the subject of his assessment, refuses
to answer any question put to him by an income-tax authority in the exercise of its powers under
this Act; or
(b) refuses to sign any statement made by him in the course of any proceedings under this Act, which
an income-tax authority may legally require him to sign; or
(c) to whom a summons is issued under sub-section (1) of section 131 either to attend to give evidence
or produce books of account or other documents at a certain place and time omits to attend or
produce books of account or documents at the place or time; or
(d) fails to comply with a notice under sub-section (1) of section 142 or sub-section (2) of section 143
or fails to comply with a direction issued under sub-section (2A) of section 142,
he shall pay, by way of penalty, a sum of ten thousand rupees for each such default or failure.
(2) If any person fails—
(a) to comply with a notice issued under sub-section (6) of section 94; or
(b) to give the notice of discontinuance of his business or profession as required by sub-section (3) of
section 176; or
(c) to furnish in due time any of the returns, statements or particulars mentioned in section 133 or
section 206 or section 206C or section 285B; or
(d) to allow inspection of any register referred to in section 134 or of any entry in such register or to
allow copies of such register or of any entry therein to be taken; or
(e) to furnish the return of income which he is required to furnish under sub-section (4A) or
sub-section (4C) of section 139 or to furnish it within the time allowed and in the manner required
under those sub-sections; or
(f) to deliver or cause to be delivered in due time a copy of the declaration mentioned in section 197A;
or
(g) to furnish a certificate as required by section 203 or section 206C; or
(h) to deduct and pay tax as required by sub-section (2) of section 226;
(i) to furnish a statement as required by sub-section (2C) of section 192;
(j) to deliver or cause to be delivered in due time a copy of the declaration referred to in sub-section
(1A) of section 206C;
(k) to deliver or cause to be delivered a copy of the statement within the time specified in sub-section
(3) of section 200 or the proviso to sub-section (3) of section 206C;
(l) to deliver or cause to be delivered the statements within the time specified in sub-section (1) of
section 206A;
(m) to deliver or cause to be delivered a statement within the time as may be prescribed under
sub-section (2A)of section 200 or sub-section (3A)of section 206C,
he shall pay, by way of penalty, a sum of five hundred rupees for every day during which the failure
continues:
Provided that the amount of penalty for failures in relation to a declaration mentioned in section 197A, a
certificate as required by section 203 and returns under sections 206 and 206C and statements under
sub-section (2A) or sub-section (3) of section 200 or the proviso to sub-section (3) or under sub-section (3A)
of section 206C shall not exceed the amount of tax deductible or collectible, as the case may be:
Provided further that no penalty shall be levied under this section for the failure referred to in clause (k), if
such failure relates to a statement referred to in sub-section (3) of section 200 or the proviso to sub-section
(3) of section 206C which is to be delivered or caused to be delivered for tax deducted at source or tax
collected at source, as the case may be, on or after the 1st day of July, 2012.
(3) Any penalty imposable under sub-section (1) or sub-section (2) shall be imposed—
(a) in a case where the contravention, failure or default in respect of which such penalty is imposable
occurs in the course of any proceeding before an income-tax authority not lower in rank than a
Joint Director or a Joint Commissioner, by such income-tax authority;
(aa) in a case falling under clause (d) of sub-section (1), by the income-tax authority who had issued the
notice or direction referred to therein;
(b) in a case falling under clause (f) of sub-section (2), by the Principal Chief Commissioner or Chief
Commissioner or Principal Commissioner or Commissioner; and
(c) in any other case, by the Joint Director or the Joint Commissioner.
(4) No order under this section shall be passed by any income-tax authority referred to in sub-section (3)
unless the person on whom the penalty is proposed to be imposed is given an opportunity of being heard in
the matter by such authority.
Explanation.—In this section, "income-tax authority" includes a Principal Director General or Director
General, Principal Director or Director, Joint Director and an Assistant Director or Deputy Director while
exercising the powers vested in a court under the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (5 of 1908), when trying a
suit in respect of the matters specified in sub-section (1) of section 131.
C. AUTHORITIES
The authorities are largely from the Tribunal and concern clause (1)(d) (non-compliance with section 142(1)/143(2)), the effect of subsequent compliance and completion of assessment under section 143(3), the first-default rule, and the section 273B reasonable-cause defence.
1. Subsequent compliance and completion under section 143(3)
Akhil Bhartiya Prathmik Shikshak Sangh Bhawan Trust v. ADIT (ITAT Delhi) (2008) 5 DTR 429
Holding Where the assessment was completed under section 143(3) (not best-judgment under section 144) and subsequent compliance was treated as good compliance, the earlier defaults are ignored; penalty for non-compliance is not warranted.
Use The leading Tribunal authority that participation culminating in a 143(3) order condones earlier default.
Principle — assessment framed on merits condones the default (ITAT Cochin and other benches)
Proposition Where the assessee ultimately furnished the details and the assessment was completed under section 143(3), the section 272A(1)(d) penalty ought not to be mechanically levied.
Use The principal defence where the assessee eventually participated.
Principle — bona fide non-appearance to an e-notice (ITAT Mumbai)
Proposition Non-appearance in response to a notice issued electronically under section 142(1), where bona fide (e.g., the notice was not effectively received/seen), is a bona fide mistake constituting reasonable cause.
Use Reasonable-cause defence in the faceless/e-notice context.
2. The first-default rule and reasonable cause
Mansi Rameshbhai Vaghasiya v. DCIT (ITAT Surat, ITA No. 401/SRT/2022)
Holding Penalty under section 272A(1)(d) must be restricted to the first default; it cannot be multiplied for each successive notice issued for the same default.
Use Caps the quantum where multiple section 142(1) notices issued for the same default.
Chudaji Thakor v. ITO (ITAT Ahmedabad)
Holding Where the assessee demonstrated reasonable cause under section 273B for non-compliance with section 142(1) notices, the section 272A(1)(d) penalty was deleted.
Use Tribunal authority applying the section 273B reasonable-cause shelter.
Principle — technological illiteracy / third-party (consultant) negligence
Proposition Genuine technological illiteracy or the negligence of a tax consultant, bona fide established, has been accepted as reasonable cause, deleting the section 272A(1)(d) penalty (ITAT).
Use Fact-based reasonable-cause defences recognised by the benches.
3. Discretion and the correct authority
Hindustan Steel Ltd v. State of Orissa (1972) 83 ITR 26 (SC)
Holding Penalty for a technical/venial or bona fide default ought not to be imposed; discretion is to be exercised judicially.
Use The bedrock authority against mechanical levy under section 272A.
Principle — penalty by the authority who issued the notice/direction
Proposition The penalty is to be imposed by the income-tax authority that issued the relevant notice/direction; a jurisdictional defect or failure to identify the precise default vitiates the levy.
Use Jurisdictional/procedural defence to a mis-framed 272A order.
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.