# LHDN Tax Investigation and How It Differs from a Tax Audit

> An LHDN tax investigation is a separate enforcement track from an audit — it targets fraud and wilful evasion, carries search-and-seizure powers, a special treble penalty and the risk of criminal prosecution under Section 114 of the Income Tax Act 1967.

- Category: taxation
- Language: en
- Status: published
- Updated: 2026-08-07
- Canonical: https://negaraku.md/en/taxation/tax-investigation

---

When the LHDN letter that arrives no longer asks for supporting documents but instead informs you that your premises will be examined, you may already have crossed the line between an audit and an investigation. Both involve the Inland Revenue Board (LHDN), but only one of them can lead to prosecution in a criminal court.

A tax investigation is a separate enforcement track. It is not merely a stricter audit — it is conducted under its own Tax Investigation Framework, carries powers of search and seizure, and opens the door to multiplied special penalties and prosecution under the Income Tax Act 1967.

## What is the difference between a tax investigation and a tax audit?

A tax audit is a verification process: LHDN examines records to ensure the correct amount of income is reported and the accurate tax is paid. It is administrative in nature and aims to encourage voluntary compliance.

A tax investigation, by contrast, begins when there is suspicion of fraud or serious discrepancy. According to Grant Thornton Malaysia, investigations are conducted under the Income Tax Act (ITA) and potentially under the Anti-Money Laundering, Anti-Terrorism Financing and Proceeds of Unlawful Activities Act (AMLATFPUAA) — and they can lead to criminal court prosecution.

| Aspect | Tax Audit | Tax Investigation |
|---|---|---|
| Purpose | Verify compliance; encourage voluntary compliance | Detect fraud / wilful evasion |
| Basis | Tax Audit Framework | Tax Investigation Framework + ITA 1967 + AMLATFPUAA |
| Nature | Administrative / civil | Can be civil and criminal |
| Typical penalty | Tax Audit Framework 2022: tiered 15% / 30% / 45% (administrative concession on the Section 113(2) penalty) | Section 114: fine + imprisonment + special penalty 3x |
| Time limit | Limited | No time limit if fraud / evasion / negligence |

For audit cases, the statutory penalty under Section 113(2) is 100% of the amount of tax undercharged. However, Grant Thornton notes that the Tax Audit Framework (effective 1 May 2022) replaces that rate with a tiered penalty as an administrative concession: 15% for the first offence, 30% for the second, and 45% for the third and subsequent offences. Voluntary disclosure within six months is reduced to 10%, while for a deliberate incorrect return the statutory 100% penalty remains applicable. These figures reflect the "administrative" nature of an audit — it is resolved through penalties, not imprisonment.

## When does LHDN escalate an audit into an investigation?

The current Tax Investigation Framework took effect on 1 January 2023, replacing the 2020 version. According to EY Malaysia, the 2023 framework contains 14 main sections covering legal provisions, investigation procedures, taxpayers' rights, confidentiality, offences, case closure and money-laundering investigations.

One notable change: the case-selection criteria now explicitly include cases where a person wilfully fails to report their income and those who make false claims. In other words, intent becomes the deciding factor. An ordinary discrepancy may be settled within an audit; signs of deliberateness — concealed income, falsified records, fabricated claims — tend to trigger an investigation.

Another important distinction concerns time. Grant Thornton stresses that there is no time limit for investigations involving fraud, wilful evasion or negligence. Old years of assessment that might be safe from an ordinary audit can be reopened in an investigation.

## What search-and-seizure powers does LHDN have?

This is what sets an investigation apart from a desk review. In an investigation, LHDN officers have powers of access to premises and documents under the Income Tax Act 1967. Grant Thornton, meanwhile, emphasises the AMLATFPUAA dimension: assets linked to tax evasion may be **frozen, seized or forfeited**.

For this reason, a taxpayer's own conduct during an investigation can itself constitute an offence. Concealing information, or destroying property or documents to obstruct seizure, carries the risk of separate charges under AMLATFPUAA — not just the original tax issue.

## How severe are the punishments under Section 114?

Section 114 of the Income Tax Act 1967 is the backbone of the criminal track. According to the statutory text published by KPMG Malaysia, Section 114(1) lists several categories of conduct — from omitting income that ought to have been included in a return, to using or authorising the use of any fraud, artifice or contrivance to evade tax.

The punishments are heavier than audit penalties:

| Section | Offence | Punishment |
|---|---|---|
| 112 | Failure to furnish return / notice of chargeability | Fine RM200–RM2,000 or imprisonment or both |
| 113 | Incorrect return / wrong information | Fine RM1,000–RM10,000 and special penalty of 200% of tax undercharged (Section 113(1)) |
| 114(1) | Wilful evasion of tax | Fine RM1,000–RM20,000 or imprisonment ≤3 years or both + special penalty of **treble** the tax undercharged |
| 114(1A) | Assisting another person to reduce tax | Fine RM2,000–RM20,000 or imprisonment ≤3 years |

The Section 114 figures above are based on the statutory text of the Income Tax Act 1967 published by KPMG and cross-verified by Baker McKenzie. The feature that distinguishes the criminal track is the special penalty of treble the amount of tax undercharged — imposed **in addition** to the fine and imprisonment.

The burden of proof also tilts against the taxpayer. Section 114(2), as cited by KPMG, provides that when a false statement or entry appears in a return or record, the person is presumed, until the contrary is proven, to have made that false statement with intent to evade tax. This presumption shifts from LHDN to the taxpayer.

## Who prosecutes, and can it be settled without going to court?

An investigation does not automatically become a charge. According to Baker McKenzie, the power to prosecute rests with the Public Prosecutor (Attorney General) under Article 145(3) of the Federal Constitution and Section 3 of the Criminal Procedure Code, and it is **discretionary** — not mandatory.

But this discretion is not a guaranteed way out. Baker McKenzie stresses that for income tax there is no formal self-disclosure programme and no settlement programme that bars prosecution. Criminal proceedings and civil claims are independent of one another: LHDN may assess and collect the underpaid tax regardless of the status of the criminal case.

As for the time to prosecute, Baker McKenzie notes that criminal proceedings for Sections 113, 115–116, 118 and 120 must be commenced within 12 years from the date of the offence; other offences have no limitation period. This means the civil and criminal tracks can run in parallel, with different periods.

## Next steps

If you receive a notice from LHDN, the first step is to identify which track you are on — audit or investigation — because the rights, risks and response strategies are entirely different. Keep records in order, never destroy documents, and engage a tax agent or tax lawyer as early as possible.

To understand the administrative-compliance side, read the related guide on **tax audit** and the Section 113 penalty. For the full and up-to-date reference, obtain the official Tax Investigation Framework from the LHDN website (hasil.gov.my), as figures and procedures may be updated from time to time.

*Note: This article is a general guide based on public sources and is not legal or tax advice. Consult a qualified professional for your specific circumstances.*

## Sources

- 2023 Tax Investigation Framework (TIF) — https://www.ey.com/en_my/technical/tax-alerts/2023-tax-investigation-framework-tif (EY Malaysia)
- Tax Audit & Tax Investigation in Malaysia: Key Differences and Common Pitfalls — https://www.grantthornton.com.my/insights/articles-and-publications/tax-audit-investigation-malaysia/ (Grant Thornton Malaysia)
- Section 114. Wilful evasion (Income Tax Act 1967 - Act 53) — http://www.kpmg.com.my/kpmg/publications/tax/22/a0053s0114.htm (KPMG Malaysia)
- Section 113. Incorrect returns (Income Tax Act 1967 - Act 53) — http://www.kpmg.com.my/kpmg/publications/tax/22/a0053s0113.htm (KPMG Malaysia)
- International Guide on Criminalization of Tax Offenses — Malaysia — https://resourcehub.bakermckenzie.com/en/resources/tax-dispute-resolution---criminal-proceedings/asia-pacific/malaysia/topics/international-guide-on-criminalization-of-tax-offenses (Baker McKenzie)

---
Source of truth: https://github.com/negaraku-md/NegaraKu.md
License: CC BY-SA 4.0