April 2008
Penalty u/s.271C and u/s.271B : Failure to deduct tax u/s.194C : Partner only matriculate, assessee new firm, followed advice given by its CA : Penalty cancelled
By K. B. Bhujle, Advocate
Reading Time 2 mins
New Page 1
7 Penalty for failure to deduct tax at source : Ss.194C,
Ss.271C and Ss.273B of Income-tax Act, 1961 : A.Ys. 2000-01 and 2001-02 : New
firm : Partner a matriculate : Assessee explained that it was not advised by its
Chartered Accountant that it was liable to deduct tax at source u/s.194C :
Explanation bona fide : Penalty cancelled.
[CIT v. Fourways International, 166 Taxman 461 (Del.)]
In the A.Ys. 2000-01 and 2001-02, the assessee had made
certain payments for fabrication charges, but had not deducted tax at source.
The Assessing Officer held that the assessee has failed to deduct tax at source
u/s.194C of the Income-tax Act, 1961 without reasonable cause and therefore
imposed penalty u/s.271C of the Act. The contention of the assessee was that it
was not advised by its Chartered Accountant that it was liable to deduct tax at
source u/s.194C of the Act and therefore the failure to deduct tax at source was
bona fide. The assessee therefore contended that there is no
justification of imposition of penalty u/s.271C of the Act. The Tribunal
accepted the contention of the assessee and cancelled the penalty.
On appeal by the Revenue, the Delhi High Court upheld the
decision of the Tribunal and held :
“(i) The Tribunal found the explanation to be bona fide.
The Tribunal concluded that the assessee was not avoiding its liability and
had cooperated with the Revenue in the payment of tax. It also held that the
assessee has not been correctly advised by its Chartered Accountant in regard
to its liability.
(ii) We may note that S. 273B of the Act does not make a
levy of penalty u/s.271C of the Act mandatory. The assessee would not be
liable to penalty if he is able to prove that there was a reasonable cause for
failing to deduct the tax. The assessee in the present case had given an
explanation which found favour with the Tribunal. We think that the view taken
by the Tribunal is one that could have possibly been taken in the matter. It
is not perverse as to warrant interference or which gives rise to a
substantial question of law.”
