High Court upholds Revenue's penalty for non-deduction of TDS, emphasizing no mens rea needed.

The High Court ruled in favor of the Revenue, setting aside the Tribunal's order and reinstating the penalty imposed under Section 271C of the Income Tax Act for non-deduction of TDS on interest paid to sister concerns. The Court held that the penalty was applicable in the absence of proof of reasonable cause for not deducting tax at source, emphasizing that mens rea is not necessary for imposing such penalties. The appeal by the Revenue was allowed, and the parties were directed to bear their respective costs.

---

---

Issues:
Penalty under Section 271C of the Income Tax Act for non-deduction of TDS on interest paid to sister concerns.

Analysis:
1. The case involves an appeal by the Revenue against the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal regarding the penalty imposed under Section 271C of the Income Tax Act for not deducting TDS on interest paid to sister concerns as per Section 194A of the Act for the assessment year 2014-2015. The Joint Commissioner imposed a penalty of Rs. 95,00,500 for non-deduction of tax, which was challenged by the assessee. The Appellate Authority confirmed the penalty, citing that there was no exemption for deduction of tax in such cases, and the plea of bona fide omission was not acceptable. However, in further appeal, the ITAT set aside the penalty based on previous judgments and decisions. The Revenue appealed, raising substantial questions of law regarding the deletion of penalty by the ITAT.

2. The arguments presented by the Senior Counsel for the Income Tax Department emphasized that the liability to deduct tax under Section 194A is strict, and there is no discretion for non-deduction. The Counsel contended that unless the assessee proves a reasonable cause for not deducting tax, the penalty is inevitable. Citing various judgments, including those of the Apex Court, it was argued that mens rea is not essential for imposing penalty for breach of civil obligations. The Senior Counsel highlighted that the burden of proof for reasonable cause lies entirely with the assessee, and inadvertent omission without reasonable cause does not absolve the liability for penalty.

3. On the other hand, the Senior Counsel for the assessee referred to a decision of the Apex Court to support the contention that contumacious conduct is necessary before imposing a penalty. The Counsel argued that the position requiring contumacious conduct has been upheld by the Apex Court, and the nature of penalty under Section 271(1)(c) requires establishing such conduct. However, the Court analyzed the contentions and held that the issue had been settled in favor of the Revenue in a previous case. The Court clarified that mens rea is not a prerequisite for imposing penalty for breach of civil obligations, and the penalty under Section 271C is not a criminal offense.

4. The Court concluded that the order of the Tribunal canceling the penalty was unsustainable. It held that in the absence of proof of reasonable cause for not deducting tax at source, the penalty under Section 271C is applicable. The Court ruled in favor of the Revenue, allowing the appeal, setting aside the Tribunal's order, and reinstating the penalty imposed by the appellate authority and assessing authority. The parties were directed to bear their respective costs.

---