Custodial Death | Pendency Of Criminal Trial No Bar For Awarding Compensation Under Public Law Remedy: Gauhati High Court Suit For Possession Under Section 6 Specific Relief Act Barred If Filed Beyond Six Months Of Dispossession: Madras High Court Subsequent Purchaser Is Representative Of Judgment Debtor, Separate Suit Challenging Execution Sale Barred Under Section 47 CPC: Kerala High Court Statutory Bail Restrictions Melt Down When Pre-Trial Detention Is Prolonged & Trial Is Unlikely To Conclude Soon: Delhi High Court Failure To Apprise Accused Of Right Under Section 50 NDPS Act Vitiates Search & Recovery: J&K & Ladakh High Court Section 12(5) Arbitration Act Inapplicable To Proceedings Commenced Before 2015 Amendment; Executing Court Can't Apply Neutrality Norms Retrospectively: Punjab & Haryana High Court Banks Can Share Sale Proceeds Of Secured Assets Outside Liquidation Estate With Homebuyers Under Compromise Agreement: Kerala High Court Private Rights Must Yield To Public Interest: Andhra Pradesh High Court Directs Removal Of Encroachments On Public Road Review Jurisdiction Cannot Be Invoked To Re-Agitate Factual Disputes Or Seek Re-Hearing On Merits: Allahabad High Court Recovery Under Section 27 Evidence Act Vitiated If Police Already Present At Spot Before Arrival Of Panch Witnesses: Bombay High Court Mere Non-Compliance Or Delay In Procedure Under Section 52A NDPS Act Is An Irregularity, Not An Illegality Entitling Accused To Bail: Calcutta High Court Recovery Of Weapon Used In Commission Of Offence Not A Sine Qua Non For Conviction If Ocular Evidence Is Corroborated: Allahabad High Court Seized Vehicles Shouldn't Be Kept Idle To Rot In Police Stations, Utility Vanishes Due To Stagnation: Karnataka High Court Or 39 CPC | Trial Court Erred In Dismissing Injunction Application Despite Respondent's 'No Objection' To Restraining Share Transfer: Gauhati High Court Issuing NBW Merely For Absence Of Accused Already On Bail Is Improper; Liberty Cannot Be Dealt With Lightly: Orissa High Court 138 NI | Expert Examination Of Disputed Documents Essential For Just Adjudication If Complainant Denies Handwriting & Signatures: Rajasthan High Court Order 41 Rule 27 CPC Cannot Be Invoked To Fill Lacunae In Evidence If Party Voluntarily Closed Evidence In Trial Court: Delhi 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