Curated commentaries and expert insights on selected statutory provisions,
case laws, and legal developments, offering practical interpretation and context.
Aimed at helping users understand the “why” behind the law, these notes add value beyond the bare text.
Income Tax Bill 2025 Clause 496 grants Special Courts exclusive jurisdiction over tax offences replacing Section 280B The Income Tax Bill 2025's Clause 496 establishes exclusive jurisdiction for Special Courts to try tax offences, replacing Section 280B of the Income-tax Act 1961. The provision includes an overriding clause against the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita 2023, requires authorized authority complaints for cognizance, and provides transitional arrangements for pending cases. Key changes include updated references to the new criminal procedure code and cross-reference to section 520 instead of section 292. The framework maintains policy continuity while modernizing procedural alignment, ensuring specialized adjudication of tax offences through designated courts with flexibility for geographical or case-specific designations.
Income Tax Bill 2025 Clause 495 creates Special Courts for tax offense trials with specialized magistrates The Income Tax Bill, 2025's Clause 495 establishes Special Courts for tax offense trials, continuing the framework from Section 280A of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The Central Government, after consulting with the Chief Justice of the High Court, may designate Judicial Magistrates of first class as Special Courts for specific areas or case categories. These courts can also try connected offenses under the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, which replaces the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. The provision aims to ensure specialized, expeditious adjudication of tax offenses while maintaining judicial oversight and procedural consistency with updated criminal procedure laws.
Income Tax Bill 2025 Clause 494 criminalizes unauthorized taxpayer information disclosure with six months imprisonment and fines Clause 494 of the Income Tax Bill, 2025 criminalizes unauthorized disclosure of taxpayer information by public servants, imposing imprisonment up to six months and fines for violations of section 258(3). The provision requires prior Central Government sanction for prosecution. This mirrors Section 280 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, maintaining identical punishment and procedural safeguards while updating cross-referenced confidentiality provisions. The legislation aims to protect taxpayer privacy and maintain tax administration integrity through deterrent criminal penalties. The comparative analysis reveals substantial continuity between the old and new provisions, with the primary change being reference to reorganized confidentiality sections in the modernized tax code.
Income Tax Bill 2025 Clause 493 allows tax authority records as evidence in prosecutions The Income Tax Bill 2025's Clause 493 addresses proof of official entries in tax prosecutions, mirroring Section 279B of the Income Tax Act 1961. The provision mandates that entries in records maintained by income-tax authorities shall be admitted as evidence in prosecution proceedings for tax offences. Evidence may be proved through either production of original records or certified copies signed by the custodian authority, stating authenticity and custody of originals. While substantively identical to existing law, the new clause restructures the provision into clearer sub-clauses for better readability, maintaining the same evidentiary framework for tax prosecutions.
Income Tax Bill 2025 Clause 492 makes specific tax offences non-cognizable requiring warrants for arrest The Income Tax Bill 2025's Clause 492 designates certain tax offences as non-cognizable, overriding the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita 2023. This provision covers offences under sections 476, 478, 479, 480, 482, and 484, requiring warrants for arrest and judicial authorization for investigations. The clause succeeds Section 279A of the Income-tax Act 1961, which similarly classified specific tax offences as non-cognizable under the former Criminal Procedure Code. This legislative approach balances tax enforcement with procedural safeguards, protecting taxpayers from arbitrary arrest while maintaining prosecution capabilities through judicial oversight and encouraging voluntary compliance.
Income Tax Bill 2025 Clause 491 expands prosecution sanction authorities and strengthens oversight procedures The Income Tax Bill 2025's Clause 491 updates prosecution procedures from Section 279 of the Income Tax Act 1961. Both provisions require prior sanction from designated senior officers before initiating prosecution for specified tax offences. Key features include: empowering authorities to grant prosecution sanction, allowing compounding of offences before or after proceedings, prohibiting prosecution where penalties are waived or reduced, establishing evidentiary rules for statements made during proceedings, and granting the Board power to issue binding instructions. The 2025 provision expands sanctioning authorities to include appellate officers and strengthens centralized oversight while maintaining core safeguards against arbitrary prosecution.
Income Tax Bill 2025 Clause 490 shifts burden to accused proving no culpable mental state in tax prosecutions The Income Tax Bill 2025's Clause 490 establishes a presumption of culpable mental state in tax prosecutions, nearly identical to Section 278E of the Income Tax Act 1961. The provision requires courts to presume the existence of mens rea (including intention, motive, knowledge, or belief) in tax offense prosecutions. The accused may rebut this presumption but must prove absence of culpable mental state beyond reasonable doubt, shifting the evidentiary burden from prosecution to defense. This approach aims to address difficulties in proving intent in complex tax cases while maintaining balance through the defense opportunity, though it raises concerns about presumption of innocence.
Income Tax Bill 2025 Clause 489 creates rebuttable presumptions for assets found during searches including virtual digital assets The Income Tax Bill, 2025's Clause 489 updates presumptions in tax offense prosecutions, replacing Section 278D of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The provision creates rebuttable presumptions regarding ownership and authenticity of assets, books, and documents found during searches under section 247 or requisitions under section 248. Key updates include explicit coverage of virtual digital assets, reflecting modern economic realities. The presumption applies to persons in possession and those referenced in section 484. Like its predecessor, the provision shifts evidentiary burden to facilitate prosecution while maintaining rebuttable nature to protect due process rights.
Clause 488 Income Tax Bill 2025 maintains karta liability for HUF tax offences with due diligence defence Clause 488 of the Income Tax Bill, 2025 addresses criminal liability for tax offences committed by Hindu Undivided Families, essentially replicating Section 278C of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The provision creates a statutory presumption that the karta is guilty of offences committed by the HUF, with defences available for lack of knowledge or due diligence. Other family members may also face liability if they consented to, connived in, or neglected duties leading to the offence. The clause maintains the existing framework's balance between ensuring accountability and preventing unjust punishment, with no substantive changes from current law.
Income Tax Bill 2025 Clause 487 creates corporate tax liability for directors and officers The Income Tax Bill 2025's Clause 487 establishes liability for corporate tax offences, mirroring Section 278B of the Income-tax Act 1961 with minimal changes. The provision creates deemed guilt for persons in charge of companies when offences occur, while allowing defenses for lack of knowledge or due diligence. It also imposes liability on directors, managers, and officers for offences committed with their consent, connivance, or neglect. Companies face fines while individuals may receive imprisonment and fines. The clause covers all business entities including firms and associations, ensuring comprehensive coverage against tax evasion through corporate structures.
Income Tax Bill 2025 Clause 486 narrows reasonable cause defense compared to current Section 278AA coverage The Income Tax Bill 2025's Clause 486 and the Income-tax Act 1961's Section 278AA both provide a "reasonable cause" defense against criminal liability for tax-related failures. Clause 486 applies to failures under sections 476 and 477 of the new Bill, while Section 278AA covers failures under sections 276A, 276AB, 276B, and 276BB of the current Act. Both provisions require the accused to prove reasonable cause existed for non-compliance. The defense operates as a non obstante clause, overriding penal consequences when successfully invoked. While sharing similar objectives of balancing deterrence with fairness, Clause 486 has a narrower scope than Section 278AA, potentially limiting its protective coverage for taxpayers.
Income Tax Bill 2025 Clause 485 imposes six months to seven years imprisonment for repeat tax offenders The Income Tax Bill 2025's Clause 485 introduces enhanced penalties for repeat tax offenders, mirroring Section 278A of the Income-tax Act 1961. The provision mandates rigorous imprisonment of six months to seven years plus mandatory fines for individuals convicted of second or subsequent offenses under specified sections (476, 477, 478(1), 479, 480, 482, 484). Key similarities include the trigger mechanism requiring prior conviction, identical punishment ranges, and mandatory minimum sentences. Primary differences involve the covered offense sections, with the new clause consolidating and potentially modernizing the approach. The provision reflects legislative intent to deter recidivism through stringent penalties while maintaining policy continuity from the existing framework.
Taxpayer challenges constitutional validity of abetment provisions criminalizing assistance in filing false tax returns A taxpayer challenged the constitutional validity of abetment provisions in tax legislation. The Income Tax Bill 2025's Clause 484 criminalizes abetting or inducing false tax returns, maintaining similar structure to existing Section 278 of the Income-tax Act 1961. Both provisions prescribe rigorous imprisonment of six months to seven years for amounts exceeding twenty-five lakh rupees, and three months to two years for lesser amounts, plus mandatory fines. The offence requires knowledge of falsity or disbelief in truth. The new provision excludes fringe benefits references, reflecting policy shifts while maintaining quantum thresholds and sentencing structures for deterring tax evasion facilitators.
Income Tax Bill 2025 Clause 483 criminalizes falsifying documents to help others evade tax with imprisonment up to two years The Income Tax Bill 2025's Clause 483 criminalizes falsification of books of account or documents with intent to enable another person to evade tax, interest, or penalty. The provision prescribes rigorous imprisonment for three months to two years plus fine. It requires proving willful conduct and intent to facilitate evasion but eliminates the need to prove actual evasion occurred. This clause substantially mirrors Section 277A of the Income-tax Act 1961, maintaining identical punishment and scope while targeting both direct offenders and facilitators of tax evasion schemes.
Taxpayer faces criminal prosecution for false tax statements under Section 277 and proposed Clause 482 with graded punishment A taxpayer faces criminal prosecution for making false statements in tax verifications or submitting false accounts under both the existing Income Tax Act, 1961 (Section 277) and the proposed Income Tax Bill, 2025 (Clause 482). The provisions require proof that the person knew or believed the statement was false. Punishment is graded based on potential tax evasion: where evaded tax exceeds twenty-five lakh rupees, rigorous imprisonment ranges from six months to seven years plus fine; in other cases, three months to two years plus fine. The 2025 Bill maintains nearly identical language and structure as the 1961 Act, ensuring continuity in enforcement and judicial interpretation while deterring deliberate tax evasion.
Income Tax Bill 2025 Clause 481 criminalizes willful failure to produce tax documents with one year imprisonment and mandatory fine The Income Tax Bill 2025's Clause 481 criminalizes willful failure to produce accounts and documents as required by tax authorities, prescribing rigorous imprisonment up to one year and mandatory fine. This provision largely mirrors Section 276D of the Income-tax Act 1961, maintaining similar penal consequences for non-compliance with statutory notices. The key difference lies in updated procedural references and slightly modified language regarding fine imposition. Both provisions require proof of willful default rather than mere negligence, serving as enforcement tools to compel taxpayer compliance and deter obstruction of assessment processes. The provision emphasizes maintaining proper documentation and timely response to official requisitions.
Income Tax Bill 2025 Clause 480 sets criminal penalties for willful failure to file returns after search operations The Income Tax Bill 2025's Clause 480 addresses criminal penalties for willful failure to file income tax returns following search operations. The provision prescribes imprisonment of three months to three years plus fines for deliberate non-compliance with notices issued under section 294(1)(a). This replaces Section 276CCC of the 1961 Act with similar penalties but removes transitional exemptions and aligns with the new legislative framework. The offense requires proving willful intent, providing safeguards against inadvertent lapses while maintaining strong deterrent measures against tax evasion in search cases.
Income Tax Bill 2025 Clause 479 extends compliance window for filing returns to avoid criminal prosecution The Income Tax Bill 2025's Clause 479 replaces Section 276CC of the Income-tax Act 1961, criminalizing willful failure to file income tax returns. Both provisions impose graded punishments based on tax evasion amounts: rigorous imprisonment of 6 months to 7 years plus fine if tax evaded exceeds Rs. 25 lakh, otherwise 3 months to 2 years imprisonment plus fine. Key change: Clause 479 extends the compliance window from "assessment year" to "one year from tax year end" for avoiding prosecution. Both exempt prosecution if returns are filed within specified timeframes or if tax payable by individuals doesn't exceed Rs. 10,000. The updated provision modernizes terminology while maintaining deterrent effect against deliberate non-compliance.
Income Tax Bill 2025 Clause 478 maintains criminal penalties for tax evasion with imprisonment up to seven years The Income Tax Bill 2025's Clause 478 largely replicates Section 276C of the Income-tax Act 1961, criminalizing wilful attempts to evade tax, penalty, or interest. Both provisions impose rigorous imprisonment of six months to seven years for evasion exceeding Rs. 25 lakh, and three months to two years for lesser amounts, plus fines. The provisions include identical Rs. 25 lakh thresholds, quantum-based punishment structures, and inclusive definitions of wilful attempt covering false entries, statements, and omissions. Minor modifications in Clause 478 include modernized language and clearer penalty provisions, while maintaining the core framework for prosecuting tax evasion with requirements for proving deliberate intent.
Income Tax Bill 2025 Clause 477 mirrors existing criminal penalties for non-deposit of collected taxes The Income Tax Bill 2025's Clause 477 maintains substantially identical provisions to Section 276BB of the Income Tax Act 1961 regarding criminal liability for failure to deposit tax collected at source. Both provisions prescribe rigorous imprisonment of three months to seven years plus fine for non-payment of collected taxes. The key exemption remains unchanged - no prosecution if payment is made before the deadline for filing the prescribed statement. The primary differences are structural, involving renumbering of cross-referenced sections rather than substantive changes. This continuity ensures smooth transition while maintaining deterrent effect against misappropriation of collected taxes, though interpretational issues regarding multiple offences and vicarious liability may require judicial clarification.
Harmonizing TDS Provisions for National Savings Instruments in India : Clause 393(3)[S.No. 6] of the Income Tax Bill, 2025 Vs. Section 194EE of the Income-tax Act, 1961
Clause 393 of the Income Tax Bill, 2025, seeks to consolidate, rationalize, and modernize the provisions relating to Tax Deduction at Source (TDS) as part of a comprehensive overhaul of the Indian direct tax regime. This clause introduces a new framework for TDS, covering a wide spectrum of payments and income streams, and is designed to replace several existing provisions in the Income-tax Act, 1961. The focus of this commentary is on Clause 393(3)[Table: S.No. 6], which pertains to TDS on payments in respect of deposits under National Savings Scheme (NSS) and similar schemes. This provision is intended to replace Section 194EE of the Income-tax Act, 1961. A detailed analysis of each aspect of this new provision will be undertaken, followed by a comparative study with the existing law, highlighting continuities, departures, and the practical impact of the changes.
Objective and Purpose
The legislative intent behind Clause 393(3)[Table: S.No. 6] is to streamline the TDS mechanism applicable to withdrawals from specified savings schemes, notably those covered u/s 80CCA(2)(a) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, such as the National Savings Scheme. The provision is aimed at ensuring tax compliance at the point of withdrawal, reducing tax evasion, and simplifying the TDS process for both payers and payees. The threshold for deduction, the rate of deduction, and the exemptions are calibrated to balance the need for revenue with considerations of administrative convenience and taxpayer relief, especially for small investors and legal heirs.
Historically, Section 194EE was introduced to address the issue of untaxed withdrawals from tax-benefited savings schemes. Over time, the provision has been amended to adjust deduction rates and thresholds, reflecting inflation and changes in savings behavior. The new Bill continues this approach but seeks to provide greater clarity and harmonization across various TDS provisions.
The provision requires any person responsible for paying an amount (as defined above) to deduct income-tax at the rate of 10% at the time of payment, provided the amount or aggregate amount paid during the tax year exceeds Rs. 2,500. The Table under sub-section (4), Sl. No. 19, further provides that payment made to an assessee being an individual, or to the heirs of an assessee, is exempt from TDS under this provision.
B. Key Features and Interpretation
Scope of Application:
The provision applies to payments made in respect of deposits under the National Savings Scheme and similar schemes as defined in Section 80CCA(2)(a) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. This includes schemes notified by the Central Government that are eligible for deduction under Chapter VI-A.
The payer can be any person, including government entities, post offices, banks, or any other institution managing such schemes.
Obligation to Deduct Tax:
The obligation to deduct tax is triggered when the payment is made, irrespective of the mode (cash, cheque, draft, or any other mode).
The deduction must be made at the time of payment, aligning with the principle of "pay as you earn" and ensuring timely collection of tax.
Rate of Deduction:
The prescribed rate is 10% of the payment amount. This is a flat rate, without reference to the recipient's marginal rate of taxation. The rate is consistent with the current regime u/s 194EE post-2016.
Threshold Limit:
No tax is required to be deducted if the amount paid or aggregate of amounts paid to the payee during the tax year is less than Rs. 2,500. This threshold is designed to provide relief to small depositors and reduce administrative burden for both payers and the tax department.
Exemptions:
The Table under sub-section (4), Sl. No. 19, specifies that no TDS is required where payment is made to:
An assessee being an individual, or
The heirs of an assessee.
This mirrors the exemption for payments to heirs u/s 194EE and extends the benefit to individuals, thereby potentially broadening the scope of exemption.
Procedural Requirements and Compliance:
The payer must ensure deduction at the time of payment, deposit the tax with the government within the prescribed time, and file necessary TDS returns/statements.
The provision is subject to the general compliance framework under the new Bill, including penalties for failure to deduct or deposit TDS.
Interaction with Declaration for No Deduction:
Sub-section (6) of Clause 393 allows certain persons to furnish a declaration that their estimated total income will be below the taxable limit, in which case no TDS is required.
However, the Table under sub-section (6) does not specifically list payments under Clause 393(3)[Table: S.No. 6], suggesting that the general rule of declaration may not apply to these payments.
C. Ambiguities and Issues in Interpretation
Definition of "Any Person": The provision uses the term "any person" as the payer, which is broad and could include entities not typically associated with NSS-type payments. Clarity may be required through subordinate legislation or guidelines.
Aggregation Rule: The threshold of Rs. 2,500 is based on aggregate payments during the tax year. The mechanism for aggregation, especially in cases of multiple accounts or branches, may need further procedural clarification.
Overlap with Exemption: There is potential ambiguity regarding the interplay between the basic provision (which covers all payments) and the exemption for individuals and heirs. The legislative intent appears to be to exempt all such payments to individuals and heirs, but the drafting could be more explicit to avoid interpretational disputes.
Non-Resident Recipients: The provision is silent on non-resident recipients. However, since the Table is under "FOR PAYMENTS TO ANY PERSON," it could arguably extend to non-residents unless specifically excluded elsewhere in the Bill.
Practical Implications
A. For Payers
Procedural Compliance: Entities responsible for making payments under NSS and similar schemes must implement systems to track aggregate payments per payee per tax year and ensure timely deduction and deposit of TDS.
Reporting Obligations: Payers must file TDS returns/statements and furnish TDS certificates to payees, enabling them to claim credit in their tax returns.
Handling Exemptions: Payers must be vigilant in identifying cases where the exemption for individuals and heirs applies, to avoid unnecessary deduction and subsequent refund claims.
B. For Payees
Cash Flow Impact: For payees not covered by the exemption, a 10% deduction at source may impact cash flows, especially if their total income is below the taxable limit and they need to claim a refund.
Refund Mechanism: Payees who are exempt but have TDS deducted in error will need to claim refunds through their income tax returns, leading to delays and administrative burden.
Documentation: Payees must maintain proper documentation to substantiate their claim for exemption or refund, especially in the case of heirs.
C. For the Tax Administration
Monitoring and Enforcement: The tax department will need to monitor compliance with the new provision, including correct application of the threshold and exemptions.
Dispute Resolution: The provision may give rise to disputes regarding eligibility for exemption, especially in cases involving heirs or multiple payments.
Data Integration: The new regime offers an opportunity to integrate TDS data with taxpayer profiles, improving compliance and reducing evasion.
D. For Heirs and Legal Representatives
Simplified Compliance: The explicit exemption for payments to heirs reduces compliance burden and prevents unnecessary tax deduction in cases of succession.
Proof of Heirship: Heirs may be required to furnish documentary evidence to establish their status, and payers must have mechanisms to verify such claims.
The person responsible for paying to any person any amount referred to in clause (a) of sub-section (2) of section 80CCA shall, at the time of payment thereof, deduct income-tax thereon at the rate of ten per cent.
Provided that no deduction shall be made under this section where the amount of such payment or, as the case may be, the aggregate amount of such payments to the payee during the financial year is less than two thousand five hundred rupees:
Provided further that nothing contained in this section shall apply to the payment of the said amount to the heirs of the assessee.
Yes, explicit (Table under sub-section (4), Sl. No. 19)
Exemption for Individuals
No general exemption; applies to all payees except heirs
Table under sub-section (4), Sl. No. 19, exempts individuals and heirs (potentially broader)
Time of Deduction
At the time of payment
At the time of payment
Declaration for No Deduction
No explicit provision
No explicit listing under declaration table; general rule may not apply
Procedural Compliance
General TDS compliance under the 1961 Act
Comprehensive compliance regime under the new Bill
C. Analysis of Key Differences and Similarities
Continuity in Substance:
The core requirement to deduct TDS at 10% on withdrawals from specified savings schemes above Rs. 2,500 remains unchanged.
The exemption for payments to heirs is continued.
Potential Broadening of Exemption:
The exemption under the new Bill (Table under sub-section (4), Sl. No. 19) appears to cover both individuals and heirs, which may be interpreted as a broader exemption than u/s 194EE, which only exempted heirs. If so, this would mean that all payments to individuals (not just heirs) are exempt from TDS, reducing the reach of the provision significantly.
This may be an intentional policy shift to reduce compliance burden for individual investors or may require clarification to avoid unintended revenue loss.
Terminology and Structure:
The new Bill uses updated terminology ("any person" as payer, "tax year" instead of "financial year") and a tabular structure for clarity and ease of reference.
The organization of exemptions and thresholds is more systematic, with a consolidated table for no deduction at source.
Procedural Modernization:
The new Bill is part of a broader effort to modernize tax administration, with likely integration of electronic compliance, centralized TDS returns, and real-time reporting.
This should facilitate easier compliance for payers and improved monitoring for the tax department.
Absence of Declaration Mechanism:
Unlike some TDS provisions which allow payees to furnish declarations for non-deduction (e.g., Form 15G/15H u/s 197A), neither Section 194EE nor the new provision explicitly provides for such a mechanism. This continues under the new regime, maintaining the same compliance approach.
Potential for Ambiguity:
The new provision's broader language regarding exemption for individuals may lead to interpretational disputes, especially if the legislative intent was only to exempt heirs, as under the previous regime. Clarificatory circulars or amendments may be necessary.
D. Policy Considerations and Rationale for Changes
Administrative Efficiency: By consolidating TDS provisions and clarifying thresholds/exemptions, the new Bill aims to reduce administrative complexity and improve compliance.
Taxpayer Relief: The potential expansion of exemption to all individuals (if so intended) would provide significant relief to small savers, aligning with the government's objective of promoting financial inclusion and encouraging long-term savings.
Revenue Protection: The retention of a low threshold and a flat deduction rate seeks to minimize revenue leakage while balancing the burden on small investors.
Conclusion
Clause 393(3)[Table: S.No. 6] of the Income Tax Bill, 2025 represents a faithful and modernized continuation of the regime established by Section 194EE of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The key features-scope, rate, threshold, and exemptions-remain unchanged, reflecting legislative satisfaction with the existing policy. The 2025 Bill enhances procedural clarity, integrates TDS provisions into a unified framework, and ensures the regime's relevance in the context of modern payment systems. For stakeholders, the practical impact is minimal, as the substance of the law is preserved. The explicit exemption for heirs, clear thresholds, and alignment with digital payment practices ensure fairness and administrative efficiency. However, the unchanged threshold may warrant future review to reflect economic realities. The harmonization and consolidation of TDS provisions in the 2025 Bill, as exemplified by Clause 393(3)[Table: S.No. 6], signal a commitment to clarity, ease of compliance, and continued vigilance in tax administration.
Harmonizing TDS Provisions for National Savings Instruments in India : Clause 393(3)[S.No. 6] of the Income Tax Bill, 2025 Vs. Section 194EE of the Income-tax Act, 1961
The Email Id has not been verified. Click on the link we have sent on
Income Tax Bill 2025 Clause 393(3) maintains 10% TDS on National Savings withdrawals above Rs. 2,500 but may broaden exemptions
The Income Tax Bill 2025's Clause 393(3) replaces Section 194EE of the Income-tax Act 1961, maintaining substantially similar TDS provisions for National Savings Scheme withdrawals. Both require 10% tax deduction on payments exceeding Rs. 2,500 annually, with exemptions for heirs. The new provision potentially broadens exemptions to include all individuals, not just heirs, which could significantly reduce compliance burden for individual investors. Key features remain unchanged: same deduction rate, threshold limits, and timing requirements. The Bill modernizes terminology and structure while preserving core policy objectives of ensuring tax compliance on savings scheme withdrawals while providing relief to small depositors and legal heirs.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick
reference only.