Penalty us 271C-Contumacious conduct of assessee necessary to be established before penalty for failure to deduct tax (TDS) can be imposed-Supreme Court

Penalty us 271C-Contumacious conduct of assessee necessary to be established before penalty for failure to deduct tax at source (TDS) can be imposed-Supreme Court

Case Details:
Civil Appeal No. 1704 of 2008
Commr. of Income Tax Delhi (Appellant)  vs. Bank of Nova Scotia (Respondent)
Date of Judgment: 07/01/2016
Coram: Justice Kurian Joseph and Justice Rohinton Fali Nariman
Non-Reportable

Brief Facts of the Case:
The dispute involved in this case was related to penalty u/s 271C for failure to deduct tax at source (TDS). The levy of the penalty was deleted by CIT(Appeals) and  the tribunal  also upheld the order of CIT(A). The ITAT held that,

“11..We have carefully considered the rival submissions. In the instant case we are not dealing with collection of tax u/s 201(1) or compensatory interest u/s 201(1A). The case of the assessee is that these amounts have already been paid so as to end dispute with Revenue. In the present appeals we are concerned with levy of penalty u/s 271-C for which it is necessary to establish that there was contumacious conduct on the part of the assessee. We find that on similar facts Hon’ble Delhi High Court have deleted levy of penalty u/s 271-C in the cae of M/s. Itochu Corporation, reported in 268 ITR 172 (Del) and in the case of CIT Vs. Mitsui & Company Ltd. reported in 272 ITR 545. Respectfully following the aforesaid judgments of Hon’ble Delhi High Court and the decision of the ITAT, Delhi in the case of Television Eighteen India Ltd., we allow the assessee’s appeal and cancel the penalty as levied u/s 271-C.”

Revenue agitated the matter before the Delhi High Court which rejected the appeal only on the ground that no substantial question of law arises in the matter.

The Hon’ble Supreme Court dismissed the Revenue’s appeal against the order of Delhi High Court and upheld that there was no substantial question of law. It further upheld the judgment of both CIT(A) and ITAT.