MACT | A Minor Cannot Be Treated as a Non-Earner: Punjab & Haryana High Court Consensual Love Affair Not Cheating Under IPC Section 417: Madras High Court Acquits Man Despite Paternity Confirmation Review Jurisdiction is an Ant-Hole in a Pigeon-Hol: Madras High Court Dismisses Review Plea Against Order Upholding Arbitral Award on Liquidated Damages Bank Can Freeze Guarantor’s Salary Account to Recover Loan Dues: Kerala High Court Clarifies CPC Exemption Does Not Apply to Banker’s Right Revenue Entry Calling Property ‘Ancestral’ Does Not Create Title: Gujarat High Court Upholds Registered Will in Second Appeal Licensee Cannot Resist Resumption Of Railway Land: Gauhati High Court Upholds Eviction For Amrit Bharat Station Scheme Mere Non-Payment of Business Dues Is Not Cheating: Calcutta High Court Protects Traders from Criminal Prosecution in Purely Civil Dispute Prosecution’s Failure to Prove Age of Prosecutrix Beyond Reasonable Doubt Fatal to POCSO Conviction: Rajasthan High Court No Title, No Right, No Equity: Bombay High Court Demolishes Claim Over Footpath Stall, Imposes ₹5 Lakh Costs for Abuse of Process Section 155(2) Cr.P.C. Does Not Bar Complainant From Seeking Magistrate’s Permission: Allahabad High Court Clarifies Law on Non-Cognizable Investigations Un-Retracted Section 108 Statement Is Binding: Delhi High Court Declines to Reopen ₹3.5 Crore Cigarette Smuggling Valuation Section 34 Is Not an Appeal in Disguise: Delhi High Court Upholds 484-Day Extension in IRCON–Afcons Tunnel Arbitration Section 432(2) Cannot Be Rendered Fatuous: Calcutta High Court Reasserts Balance Between Judicial Opinion and Executive Discretion in Remission Matters Termination of Mandate Is Not Termination of Arbitration: Bombay High Court Revives Reference and Appoints Substitute Arbitrator CBI Can’t Prosecute When Bank Suffers No Loss: Andhra Pradesh High Court Discharges Bhimavaram Hospitals Directors in ₹1.5 Crore SBI Case Section 256 CrPC Cannot Be A Shield For An Accused Who Never Faced Trial: Allahabad High Court Restores 8 Cheque Bounce Complaints

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