Karnataka High Court Upholds ITAT’s Decision, Dismissing Revenue’s Appeal and Ruling That No Penalty Under Section 271C of the Income Tax Act Is Warranted for Bona Fide Non-Deduction of TDS Based on Professional Advice and Absence of Mala Fide Intent

Court’s Decision

The Karnataka High Court dismissed the appeal filed by the Revenue and upheld the decision of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT). The court held that the respondent company had reasonable cause for its failure to deduct Tax Deducted at Source (TDS) as required under Section 271C of the Income Tax Act, 1961. It ruled that the imposition of a penalty was unwarranted as the non-compliance was based on bona fide reliance on legal and professional advice, without any evidence of mala fide intent or perverse findings.

Facts

1. Nature of the Contract: The respondent company, for the assessment years 1996–97 and 1997–98, entered into a contract with M/s. Raython Ebaseo Overseas Ltd. (a U.S.-based entity) for the supply and services of offshore equipment. The company decided not to deduct TDS on the payments made under this contract.
2. Rationale for Non-Deduction: The decision was based on professional advice, which concluded that no income was deemed to accrue or arise in India in relation to the offshore contract, and therefore no TDS was required.
3. Advance Ruling: The respondent company also sought an advance ruling on the issue of TDS applicability. However, this application was not adjudicated due to administrative delays.
4. Initial Compliance: For part of the relevant period, the respondent deducted and remitted TDS, demonstrating that its non-deduction was not consistent or willful.
5. Penalty Proceedings: The Revenue initiated penalty proceedings under Section 271C, alleging failure to deduct TDS. The Assessing Officer levied the penalty, but the Commissioner of Income Tax (CIT) (Appeals) granted relief, observing that the respondent’s non-deduction of TDS was not mala fide and was backed by reasonable cause. The ITAT upheld the CIT’s decision, which was then challenged by the Revenue in the High Court.

Issues

The primary legal issue raised in the appeal was:

• Whether the Tribunal was correct in holding that the respondent’s failure to deduct TDS and belated remittance of TDS already deducted was due to reasonable cause and that the penalty under Section 271C was not sustainable.

Petitioner’s (Revenue) Arguments

1. Inconsistent Deduction: The Revenue argued that the respondent initially deducted and remitted TDS but later failed to do so without justification, showing inconsistency in compliance.
2. No Reasonable Cause: It contended that the explanation offered by the respondent was insufficient to establish reasonable cause under Section 273B of the Income Tax Act.
3. Penalty Justified: The Revenue maintained that the penalty imposed by the Assessing Officer was justified as the respondent failed to comply with statutory obligations.

Respondent’s (Company) Arguments

1. Professional Advice: The respondent argued that the decision not to deduct TDS was based on bona fide reliance on legal opinions obtained from reputable firms, including a law firm (M/s. Singhania & Co.) and a Chartered Accountancy firm (Lovelock & Lewis).
2. No Malafide Intent: The non-compliance was neither intentional nor aimed at evading tax but was based on a genuine interpretation of the law.
3. Advance Ruling Application: The company submitted that it had sought an advance ruling from the appropriate authority, which was not processed due to administrative reasons, further indicating its bona fides.

Analysis of the Law

1. Section 271C: This section prescribes a penalty for failure to deduct TDS as required by law. It provides that such failure attracts a penalty equal to the amount of tax not deducted or paid.
2. Section 273B: This section provides an exception to penalties under Section 271C, stating that no penalty shall be imposed if the assessee proves that there was reasonable cause for the failure.
3. Interpretation of Reasonable Cause: The court noted that “reasonable cause” involves the genuineness and truthfulness of the explanation offered and whether a prudent person would act similarly under the circumstances.
4. Role of Professional Advice: The court emphasized that reliance on professional opinions from reputed advisors constitutes reasonable cause, especially when backed by documentary evidence.

Precedent Analysis

1. CIT v. Eli Lilly & Co. (India) (P) Ltd. (2009): The Supreme Court held that penalties under Section 271C should only be imposed if the assessee fails to demonstrate good and sufficient reasons for non-compliance. It emphasized that the burden lies on the assessee to prove reasonable cause.
2. Woodward Governor India v. CIT (Delhi High Court): This case clarified the meaning of reasonable cause, equating it to the standard expected of a person of average prudence.
3. CIT v. Viswapriya Financial Services and Securities Ltd. (Madras High Court): The court held that findings of reasonable cause are factual and not subject to High Court interference unless perverse or without evidentiary basis.

Court’s Reasoning

1. Reasonable Cause Established: The court found that the respondent’s reliance on professional advice and its application for an advance ruling demonstrated genuine and reasonable cause for non-deduction of TDS.
2. No Substantial Question of Law: The court observed that the Revenue’s challenge pertained to factual findings rather than a substantial question of law, which is a prerequisite for appeals under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act.
3. Consistent with Precedents: The court applied the principles laid out in precedents, emphasizing that penalties should not be imposed if the non-compliance is based on reasonable cause supported by credible evidence.

Conclusion

The court dismissed the Revenue’s appeal, holding that:

1. The respondent demonstrated reasonable cause for its failure to deduct TDS, supported by professional advice and bona fide reliance on legal opinions.
2. The Tribunal’s findings were based on valid materials and evidence, warranting no interference by the High Court.
3. Penalties under Section 271C were unwarranted, as the case did not involve mala fide intent or perverse findings.

Implications

1. Relief to Assessees: The judgment reaffirms that penalties under Section 271C are not automatic and can be avoided if reasonable cause is demonstrated.
2. Bona Fide Reliance on Advice: The case highlights the importance of seeking professional advice to substantiate claims of reasonable cause in tax matters.
3. Judicial Review: The decision emphasizes that High Courts should not interfere with factual findings of lower tribunals unless there is a substantial question of law or evidence of perversity.

This judgment reinforces the principle that penalties should not be imposed in cases where non-compliance is based on a genuine and reasonable interpretation of the law.

Also Read – Supreme Court Examines Maintenance Rights in Void Marriages: “Relief Under Section 25 of the Hindu Marriage Act is Always Discretionary and Case-Specific”