Section 9 A&C Act Relief Available Until Award Is Actually Enforced, Even After It Becomes Enforceable: Telangana High Court Matrimonial Litigations Must Not Degenerate Into Contests Of Mutual Humiliation By Weaponising Private Images: Delhi High Court Unarmed Witnesses’ Inaction Against Armed Assailants Justified By Instinct Of Self-Preservation; Testimony Cannot Be Discarded: Allahabad High Court Ocular Evidence Outweighs Motive: Andhra Pradesh High Court Upholds Murder Conviction Based On Reliable Eyewitness Testimony Arrest Illegal If Written 'Grounds Of Arrest' Not Furnished To Accused; Communication Of Mere 'Reasons' Insufficient: Bombay High Court Absence Of Territorial Jurisdiction No Ground To Quash FIR At Threshold If Allegations Disclose Cognizable Offence: Calcutta High Court Proof Of Demand Is Sine Qua Non For PC Act Conviction; Voice Recordings Inadmissible Without Sec 65-B Certificate: Chhattisgarh HC Section 91 IEA | Disposition Of Immovable Property Cannot Be Proved By Oral Evidence If Written Document Not Produced: Delhi High Court NRC Legacy Data Extracts Inadmissible Without Section 65B Certificate; PAN Card & EPIC Not Proof Of Citizenship: Gauhati High Court Testimony Of Injured Witness Entitled To Great Weight; Minor Contradictions Due To Lapse Of Memory Cannot Discard Prosecution Case: Himachal Pradesh High Court Section 164 CrPC Statement Recorded Without Procedural Safeguards Or 'Cooling-Off' Period Not A Valid Confession: Jharkhand High Court Anticipatory Bail Cannot Be Denied Merely Because Investigation Is At A Nascent Stage If Custodial Interrogation Is Not Indispensable: Telangana High Court Actual Pay Drawn During Last 10 Months Must Be Basis For Pension Calculation, Regardless Of Notional Pay In Parent Bank: Punjab & Haryana High Court Kerala High Court Remands Teacher Seniority Dispute For Fresh Consideration To Verify If Senior Teacher Relinquished Promotion Claim Receipt Of DNA Report After Testimony Doesn't Automatically Confer Right To Recall Witness For Further Cross-Examination: Madhya Pradesh High Court Possession Of 'Bhang' Not An Offence Under NDPS Act, Specific Definition Excludes It: Jharkhand High Court Acquits Man Trial Court Cannot Reject Request For Handwriting Expert Merely Because Signatures Are On Photocopies: Punjab & Haryana High Court

Supreme Court Rules No Penalty Under Section 271C of Income Tax Act for Belated TDS Remittance

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


In a recent judgment, the Supreme Court of India clarified that no penalty shall be levied under Section 271C of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for belated remittance of Tax Deducted at Source (TDS). The court emphasized the strict interpretation of penal provisions and analyzed the relevant statutory provisions to arrive at its conclusion.

The case involved multiple appeals challenging the imposition of penalties under Section 271C of the Income Tax Act for belated remittance of TDS. The assessees contended that the penalties were not justifiable as they had deducted the TDS but remitted it belatedly. The issue before the court was whether penalties could be imposed for belated remittance of TDS under Section 271C.

The assessees argued that Section 271C(1)(a) only applies to cases of failure to deduct TDS, and the provision does not encompass belated remittance. They relied on the strict interpretation of penal provisions and emphasized that the language used in Section 271C(1)(a) clearly refers to "fails to deduct" and does not mention belated remittance.

On the other hand, the Revenue argued that Section 271C was inserted to penalize both non-deduction and belated remittance of TDS. They contended that any other interpretation would frustrate the purpose of the provision, which aimed to levy penalties for failure to deduct tax at source.

The Supreme Court carefully examined the statutory provisions, including Section 271C, Section 201(1A) (which deals with interest on belated remittance), and Section 276B (which addresses prosecution for failure to pay TDS). The court observed that Section 271C(1)(a) clearly focuses on the failure to deduct TDS and does not mention belated remittance.

The court further emphasized that penal provisions should be strictly construed and interpreted as they are, without adding or subtracting anything from the language. It held that the consequences of non-payment or belated remittance of TDS are specifically addressed under other sections of the Act, such as Section 201(1A) and Section 276B.

The court also referred to a CBDT Circular No. 551 dated 23.01.1998, which acknowledged that no penalty is envisaged under Section 271C for belated remittance or non-deduction of TDS. The circular clarified that penalties under Section 271C were meant for failure to deduct tax at source.

Based on the analysis of statutory provisions and the CBDT Circular, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of the assessees. It held that no penalty shall be levied under Section 271C for belated remittance of TDS after deducting the same. The court quashed the impugned judgments and orders of the High Court, allowing the appeals.

M/s US Technologies International Pvt. Ltd. Versus The Commissioner of Income Tax        

Latest Legal News