2023 (12) TMI 580 - AT - Income Tax

Penalty under Section 271C deleted for non-deduction of TDS on software payments to USA companies

Isys Softech Pvt. Ltd. Versus ITO Ward 2 (2), Jaipur

Isys Softech Pvt. Ltd. Versus ITO Ward 2 (2), Jaipur - TMI Issues Involved:1. Justification of penalty under Section 271C of the Income Tax Act.2. Limitation period for initiating and levying penalty.3. Bona fide belief and reasonable cause for non-deduction of TDS.Summary of Judgment:Issue 1: Justification of Penalty under Section 271CThe assessee challenged the levy of penalty of Rs. 11,46,838/- under Section 271C of the Income Tax Act, arguing that no penalty was initiated in the order dated 29.03.2014 under Section 143(3) and that the assessee had a bona fide belief that no tax was deductible on payments to foreign suppliers without a permanent establishment in India. The CIT(A) dismissed the appeal, stating that the penalty proceedings under Section 271C are independent of the quantum appeal and are governed by Section 275(1)(c), making the cited court cases inapplicable. The assessee's dual stand on similar transactions further established a clear default in TDS deduction.Issue 2: Limitation Period for Initiating and Levying PenaltyThe assessee argued that the penalty was initiated after six years, which is beyond the reasonable period of four years as held in various judicial pronouncements. The CIT(A) dismissed this ground, stating that the limitation period for penalties under Section 271C is guided by Section 275(1)(c), which does not prescribe a specific time limit. The Tribunal agreed with this interpretation, noting that the penalty order was passed within the limitation period prescribed under Section 275(1)(c).Issue 3: Bona Fide Belief and Reasonable Cause for Non-Deduction of TDSThe assessee contended that it had a bona fide belief that no tax was deductible based on various judicial pronouncements and the DTAA between India and the USA. The Tribunal noted that the levy of penalty under Section 271C is not automatic and requires the absence of reasonable cause. The Tribunal found that the assessee had a reasonable cause for not deducting TDS, as the revenue-neutral effect of the disallowance was sustained by the ITAT. The Tribunal held that there was no deliberate inaction or contumacious conduct on the part of the assessee, and thus, the penalty was deleted.Conclusion:The appeal of the assessee was allowed, and the penalty under Section 271C was deleted based on the reasonable cause and bona fide belief for non-deduction of TDS. The other grounds raised by the assessee were considered academic and treated as infructuous.