Kerala High Court Denies Relief To Petitioner Suppressing Facts, Orders Enquiry Into Allotment Of Govt Scheme Houses On Puramboke Land Candidate Missing Physical Test For Minor Illness Has No Enforceable Right To Rescheduling: Supreme Court Prolonged Incarceration And Parity Constitute Valid Grounds For Regular Bail: Supreme Court Accused In Cheque Bounce Cases Cannot File Evidence-In-Chief By Affidavit Under Section 145 NI Act: Orissa High Court Borrowers Have No Right To Personal Hearing Before Fraud Classification, But Full Forensic Audit Report Must Be Supplied: Supreme Court Pendency Of Matrimonial Dispute With General Allegations Not A Valid Ground To Deny Public Employment: Allahabad High Court Minimum Five Persons Mandatory To Prove 'Preparation For Dacoity' Under Section 399 IPC: Gujarat High Court Suit For Specific Performance Not Maintainable Without Prayer To Set Aside Termination Of Agreement: Madras High Court Trial Court Must Indicate Material Forming Basis Of Charge, Mechanical Framing Of Charges Impermissible: Madhya Pradesh High Court Voluntary Retirement Deemed Accepted If Positive Order Of Refusal Is Not Communicated Within Notice Period: Supreme Court Court Cannot Convict One Accused And Acquit Another On Same Evidence: Supreme Court Acquits Murder Convict Suspicion Cannot Replace Proof: Supreme Court Acquits Murder Convict Due To Unreliable Last-Seen Evidence And Principle Of Parity 138 NI Act | Accused Cannot Rebut Presumption Of Legally Enforceable Debt At Pre-Trial Stage In Cheque Bounce Cases: Supreme Court More Meritorious PWD Candidates From Reserved Categories Can Claim Unreserved PWD Posts In Open Competition: Supreme Court Meritorious Reserved Candidates Can Claim Unreserved Horizontal Vacancies Based On Merit: Supreme Court Employee Not Entitled To Gratuity Until Conclusion Of Both Departmental And Criminal Proceedings: Supreme Court Stamp Duty Recovery Against Legal Heirs Is Strictly Limited To The Extent Of Inherited Estate: Allahabad High Court Single Lathi Blow On Head During Sudden Altercation Amounts To Culpable Homicide Under Section 304 Part II IPC, Not Murder: Madhya Pradesh High Court Habeas Corpus Maintainable For Child Custody Against Father; Cannot Be Dismissed Merely Due To Alternate Remedy: Allahabad High Court "Plea Of Ignorance In Digital Era Inexcusable": Punjab & Haryana HC Imposes Rs 10K Cost On Accused For Hiding Prior Bail Dismissal Discrepancies In Name And Age On Monthly Pass Fail To Establish 'Bona Fide Passenger' Status In Railway Accident Claim: Delhi High Court "Last Seen" Theory A Weak Link If Time Gap Is Wide: Bombay High Court Acquits Man Sentenced To Life For Murder Failure To Conduct Pre-Anaesthetic Check-Up Prima Facie Amounts To Gross Medical Negligence Under Section 304A IPC: Kerala 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