ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. MAHLE ENGINE COMPONENTS INDIA PVT. LTD., NEW DELHI
In favour of the assessee: the Revenue's appeal was dismissed. From the AI summary of this appeal.
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal held that the assessee had a reasonable cause for not deducting tax at source, as per Section 273B. The assessee's belief that TDS was not applicable to payments to MPAKVN was considered genuine, especially since the AO had not treated them in default for prior years.
What were the facts?
The assessee made payments of rent/lease charges without deducting tax at source. The Assessing Officer treated the assessee in default and imposed a penalty under Section 271C. The assessee contended that they believed no TDS was required as the payment was to a specialized State Corporation, similar to a government entity.
What were the issues?
Whether a penalty under Section 271C for failure to deduct tax at source can be imposed when there is a reasonable cause for such failure, as provided under Section 273B.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
Section 271C,Section 273B,Section 201(1)/(1A)
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH : SMC-I : NEW DELHI
Before: SHRI R.S. SYAL
(Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by : Shri Ved Jain, CA Respondent by: Shri S.L. Anuragi, Sr.DR Date of Hearing : 29.09.2015 Date of Pronouncement: 29.09.2015 ORDER
This appeal by the Revenue is directed against the order passed by the CIT(A) on 19.3.2014 deleting the penalty of Rs.2,20,031/- imposed by the Additional CIT u/s 271C of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter also called `the Act’) in relation to the Assessment Year 2008-09.
Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that during the course of TDS survey conducted by the Revenue officers on 1.11.2010 in the office of (MPAKVN), it transpired that the assessee made payment of rent/lease charges to MPAKVN without deducting tax at source. The assessee was treated in default by means of order u/s 201(1)/(1A) of the Act determining its liability to the tune of Rs.3,16,263/-. Thereafter, penalty u/s 271C was imposed, which was deleted by the ld. CIT(A). The Revenue is aggrieved against the impugned order deleting such penalty.
I have heard the rival submissions and perused the relevant material on record. It is noticed that the assessee was treated in default in terms of section 201(1)/(1A) in respect of lease rental payments made to MPAKVN without deduction of tax at source. During the course of such proceedings, it was argued by the assessee that MPAKVN is a specialized State Corporation promoted for the development of industrial areas and infrastructure facilities in the western part of the State and, as such, the assessee was of the opinion that no tax at source was required to be deducted from payment of lease rent. It was further contended that not only the assessee, but, whole of the industry was under this impression that the lease rent is being paid to Government and, hence, no liability to deduct tax at source was there. This is apparent from page 2 of the order passed by the AO u/s 201(1)/(1A). It is further evident from next para of the same order that the assessee did not deduct tax at source from payment of such lease rentals in the past also. The AO has found the assessee’s contention in this regard as true, which has been recorded on para 3 of page 2 of his order. He did not treat the assessee in default in respect of financial years 2004-05 to 2006-07. It was only for the financial year 2007-08 and 2008-09 that the assessee was treated in default u/s 201(1)/(1A). These facts amply indicate that the assessee ab initio entertained a belief that the payment of lease rentals to MPAKVN was not subject to deduction of tax at source, being in the nature of a payment made to Government.
At this stage, it is pertinent to mention that section 273B provides that notwithstanding anything contained in the provisions of certain sections set out in this provision, no penalty shall be imposable where failure referred to in these sections is proved to be for a reasonable cause. Section 271C, which has been invoked in the instant case for imposition of penalty, is one of the sections covered in section 273B. In this view of the matter, it becomes patent that penalty for failure to deduct tax at source u/s 271C cannot be imposed if there exists a reasonable cause for the failure of the assesee to deduct tax at source. In my considered opinion, the assessee has successfully demonstrated a reasonable cause, as discussed in the immediately preceding para, for not making deduction of tax at source from payment of lease rentals of MPAKVN. I, therefore, approve the view taken by the ld. CIT(A) in deleting the instant penalty, but, on this legal issue.
More judgments on Section 271C
- Sbi, (Erstwhile Sbbj), Baran vs ITO (TDS), KotaITA 143/JPR/2026[2017-18]Status: Disposed13 Oct 2026AY 2017-18
- Jagadish Panchal, Udaipur vs Additional Commissioner of Income Tax…ITA 314/JODH/2024[2016-17]Status: Disposed29 Sept 2026AY 2016-17
- Teampumkin Corporation, Mumbai vs Income Tax Officer (TDS)-2(3)(2), MumbaiITA 5318/MUM/2026[2018-19]Status: Disposed22 Sept 2026AY 2018-19
- Teampumkin Corporation, Mumbai vs Income Tax Officer (TDS)-2(3)(2) Mumbai…ITA 5281/MUM/2026[2019-20]Status: Disposed22 Sept 2026AY 2019-20
- Azure Green Tech Private Limited, Delhi vs Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle…ITA 6199/DEL/2026[2021-22]Status: Disposed21 Sept 2026AY 2021-22
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- M/S. Saraswati Enterprises vs. State Of RajasthanRajasthan · 28 Oct 2026
- Akshaya Consortium vs. The Assistant Commissioner (St)Andhra Pradesh · 28 Oct 2026
- Dipanshu Aggarwal vs. Director General Of GST IntelligenceDelhi · 28 Oct 2026
- Dezinetree Projects PVT. LTD. vs. Spokes Digital Inc And AnrDelhi · 28 Oct 2026
- Jaydeep Jayantilal Hudaka vs. State Of GujaratGujarat · 28 Oct 2026