Section 275B — Failure to comply with the provisions of clause (iib) of sub-section (1) of section 132
Case Laws & Commentary — Income-tax Act, 1961 (as amended by the Finance Act, 2026) — bharattax.co Treatise
Status: Live penal provision. Punishes refusal to afford the authorised officer facility to inspect electronic/other books during search.
Finance Act, 2026: AMENDED w.e.f. 1 March 2026 — marginal heading recast and punishment converted to simple imprisonment up to six months, or fine, or both (see amendment note).
Mechanism: Targets a person who, required under s.132(1)(iib) to afford facility to inspect books of account or other documents maintained in electronic form, fails to do so.
Litigation profile: Sparse — no direct reported merits authority; ancillary to the s.132 search power.
A. COMMENTARY
Purpose
Section 275B is the penal counterpart of clause (iib) of section 132(1), which was inserted to meet the realities of digital record-keeping. Where books of account or other documents are maintained in electronic form, the person in control of the computer system or storage device is obliged to afford the authorised officer the 'necessary facility to inspect' them — in effect to provide access, passwords and assistance so the officer can read the data. Section 275B criminalises a failure to afford that facility, ensuring that an assessee cannot defeat a search by locking the authorised officer out of an encrypted or password-protected system.
Ingredients and overlap
The ingredients are (i) a person required under s.132(1)(iib) to afford facility to inspect; and (ii) failure to afford such facility. The conduct frequently overlaps with section 275A (contravention of a restraint order) and with the general obstruction of search; but 275B is specific to inspection of books/documents (now overwhelmingly electronic). A bona fide inability — for instance, genuine non-possession of a password held by a third party — is conceptually distinct from a 'failure' to afford facility, and is the natural line of defence.
FA 2026 Amendment (w.e.f. 1 March 2026)
By section 24 of the Finance Act, 2026, with effect from 1 March 2026, section 275B is amended: (a) the marginal heading is substituted to read 'Failure to afford facility for inspection of books of account during search.'; and (b) for the words 'rigorous imprisonment for a term which may extend to two years and shall also be liable to fine', the words 'simple imprisonment for a term up to six months, or with fine, or with both' are substituted. The change is significant — the maximum imprisonment is reduced from two years to six months, the imprisonment is made simple rather than rigorous, and the court is given the option of fine alone (or both). This materially down-grades the offence and brings it within the 'summons case' / lighter-touch category. The verbatim text in Part B is the pre-amendment text.
B. STATUTORY TEXT (verbatim — pre-Finance Act, 2026 text)
The text reproduced is the pre-Finance Act, 2026 text; from 1 March 2026 the punishment is reduced to simple imprisonment up to six months, or fine, or both (see amendment note).
Failure to comply with the provisions of clause (iib) of sub-section (1) of section 132.
275B. If a person who is required to afford the authorised officer the necessary facility to inspect the books of account or other documents, as required under clause (iib) of sub-section (1) of section 132, fails to afford such facility to the authorised officer, he shall be punishable with rigorous imprisonment for a term which may extend to two years and shall also be liable to fine.
C. AUTHORITIES
No reported merits decision construes section 275B directly (candour rule). The provision rides on the validity of the underlying section 132 search; the cognate search-validity authorities collected under section 275A apply equally here.
Cognate authority — search powers and electronic records
Illustrative only; these frame the lawful exercise of the s.132 inspection power that section 275B enforces.
Pooran Mal v. Director of Inspection (1974) 93 ITR 505 (SC)
Court/Year Supreme Court, 1974.
Holding Validity of the search-and-seizure code under section 132; the inspection power that 275B protects is part of that valid scheme.
Director General of Income Tax (Investigation) v. Spacewood Furnishers (P) Ltd. (2015) 374 ITR 595 (SC)
Court/Year Supreme Court, 2015.
Holding Lays down the conditions for a valid s.132 authorisation and the 'reason to believe' standard; a search lawfully authorised carries with it the inspection obligations enforced by section 275B.
CHAPTER XXII — OFFENCES AND PROSECUTIONS
Section 275B — Failure to comply with the provisions of clause (iib) of sub-section (1) of section 132
Case Laws & Commentary — Income-tax Act, 1961 (as amended by the Finance Act, 2026) — bharattax.co Treatise
Status: Live penal provision. Punishes refusal to afford the authorised officer facility to inspect electronic/other books during search.
Finance Act, 2026: AMENDED w.e.f. 1 March 2026 — marginal heading recast and punishment converted to simple imprisonment up to six months, or fine, or both (see amendment note).
Mechanism: Targets a person who, required under s.132(1)(iib) to afford facility to inspect books of account or other documents maintained in electronic form, fails to do so.
Litigation profile: Sparse — no direct reported merits authority; ancillary to the s.132 search power.
A. COMMENTARY
Purpose
Section 275B is the penal counterpart of clause (iib) of section 132(1), which was inserted to meet the realities of digital record-keeping. Where books of account or other documents are maintained in electronic form, the person in control of the computer system or storage device is obliged to afford the authorised officer the 'necessary facility to inspect' them — in effect to provide access, passwords and assistance so the officer can read the data. Section 275B criminalises a failure to afford that facility, ensuring that an assessee cannot defeat a search by locking the authorised officer out of an encrypted or password-protected system.
Ingredients and overlap
The ingredients are (i) a person required under s.132(1)(iib) to afford facility to inspect; and (ii) failure to afford such facility. The conduct frequently overlaps with section 275A (contravention of a restraint order) and with the general obstruction of search; but 275B is specific to inspection of books/documents (now overwhelmingly electronic). A bona fide inability — for instance, genuine non-possession of a password held by a third party — is conceptually distinct from a 'failure' to afford facility, and is the natural line of defence.
FA 2026 Amendment (w.e.f. 1 March 2026)
By section 24 of the Finance Act, 2026, with effect from 1 March 2026, section 275B is amended: (a) the marginal heading is substituted to read 'Failure to afford facility for inspection of books of account during search.'; and (b) for the words 'rigorous imprisonment for a term which may extend to two years and shall also be liable to fine', the words 'simple imprisonment for a term up to six months, or with fine, or with both' are substituted. The change is significant — the maximum imprisonment is reduced from two years to six months, the imprisonment is made simple rather than rigorous, and the court is given the option of fine alone (or both). This materially down-grades the offence and brings it within the 'summons case' / lighter-touch category. The verbatim text in Part B is the pre-amendment text.
B. STATUTORY TEXT (verbatim — pre-Finance Act, 2026 text)
The text reproduced is the pre-Finance Act, 2026 text; from 1 March 2026 the punishment is reduced to simple imprisonment up to six months, or fine, or both (see amendment note).
Failure to comply with the provisions of clause (iib) of sub-section (1) of section 132.
275B. If a person who is required to afford the authorised officer the necessary facility to inspect the books of account or other documents, as required under clause (iib) of sub-section (1) of section 132, fails to afford such facility to the authorised officer, he shall be punishable with rigorous imprisonment for a term which may extend to two years and shall also be liable to fine.
C. AUTHORITIES
No reported merits decision construes section 275B directly (candour rule). The provision rides on the validity of the underlying section 132 search; the cognate search-validity authorities collected under section 275A apply equally here.
Cognate authority — search powers and electronic records
Illustrative only; these frame the lawful exercise of the s.132 inspection power that section 275B enforces.
Pooran Mal v. Director of Inspection (1974) 93 ITR 505 (SC)
Court/Year Supreme Court, 1974.
Holding Validity of the search-and-seizure code under section 132; the inspection power that 275B protects is part of that valid scheme.
Director General of Income Tax (Investigation) v. Spacewood Furnishers (P) Ltd. (2015) 374 ITR 595 (SC)
Court/Year Supreme Court, 2015.
Holding Lays down the conditions for a valid s.132 authorisation and the 'reason to believe' standard; a search lawfully authorised carries with it the inspection obligations enforced by section 275B.