Bona fide explanation for TDS delay can defeat penalty where non-compliance was not wilful and circumstances were unavoidable.

Penalty under the Income-tax Act for delayed TDS remittance or delayed furnishing of TDS certificates is not attracted mechanically where the assessee gives a bona fide explanation showing unavoidable circumstances, liquidity constraints, business slowdown, or absence of the person handling tax compliance. The text states that the authorities failed to properly examine these factual explanations and the actual extent of default, with the result that penalties under Sections 271C and 272A(2)(g) were held unsustainable and deleted. The stated ratio is that penalty for TDS-related non-compliance requires a reasoned assessment of culpability and the real default, not a routine invocation of the provision.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether penalty under Section 271C of the Income-tax Act, 1961 was leviable where the tax had been deducted but the remittance to the Government account was delayed due to unavoidable circumstances. (ii) Whether penalty under Section 272A(2)(g) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 was sustainable for delay in furnishing TDS certificates and related compliance where the assessee pleaded genuine reasons and financial difficulty.

Issue (i): Whether penalty under Section 271C of the Income-tax Act, 1961 was leviable where the tax had been deducted but the remittance to the Government account was delayed due to unavoidable circumstances.

Analysis: The assessment and penalty proceedings proceeded on the footing that the assessee had deducted tax at source but had not deposited it within time. The record showed that the assessee had explained the delay by pointing to circumstances beyond its control, including the absence of the person handling tax matters and payment made before the survey in respect of most items. These material facts were not properly appreciated by the authorities below. The delay was treated as a case of non-negligent default, and the provision was therefore found to have been invoked mechanically. The penalty was also found to have been confirmed without examining whether it exceeded the actual default.

Conclusion: The penalty under Section 271C of the Income-tax Act, 1961 was not sustainable and was deleted, in favour of the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether penalty under Section 272A(2)(g) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 was sustainable for delay in furnishing TDS certificates and related compliance where the assessee pleaded genuine reasons and financial difficulty.

Analysis: The delay in filing quarterly TDS statements and issuing certificates was explained as having arisen from liquidity constraints, business slowdown, and the absence of the person responsible for tax compliance. The authorities below imposed penalty without giving due weight to these explanations and without properly considering whether the delay was wilful. The explanation was treated as bona fide and the levy was held to have been made without adequate application of mind to the factual circumstances.

Conclusion: The penalty under Section 272A(2)(g) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 was not sustainable and was deleted, in favour of the assessee.

Final Conclusion: All impugned penalties were set aside and the assessee succeeded in every appeal.

Ratio Decidendi: Where the delay in TDS-related compliance is supported by a bona fide and plausible explanation showing unavoidable circumstances, penalty provisions for default in deduction, deposit, or furnishing of certificates are not attracted mechanically and require a reasoned examination of the actual default and culpability.

---