Facts of the Case

Denso India Limited, engaged in manufacturing operations, had expatriate technicians deputed from its Japanese parent company for work in India. Part of their salary was paid in India and part outside India in Japan.

The Income Tax Department conducted a survey and alleged that the assessee failed to deduct TDS under Section 192 on the salary paid outside India, resulting in tax default. A penalty of Rs. 5.74 crores was imposed under Section 271C.

The assessee contended that the omission was based on a bona fide understanding that salary paid outside India was not taxable in India and subsequently deposited revised tax and interest.

Initially, the CIT(A) accepted the explanation and deleted the penalty. However, later exercising powers under Section 154, the CIT(A) rectified the earlier order and restored the penalty, holding that mistakes existed in the original appellate order. The ITAT set aside this rectification order, holding that Section 154 cannot be used for review. The Department appealed before the High Court.

Issues Involved

  1. Whether the CIT(A) could invoke Section 154 to alter and reverse its own earlier appellate order?
  2. Whether rectification under Section 154 amounted to an impermissible review of the earlier order?
  3. Whether penalty under Section 271C could be sustained where reasonable cause existed for failure to deduct TDS?
  4. Whether subsequent Supreme Court findings on the same issue rendered the Revenue’s appeals unsustainable?

Petitioner’s Arguments (Revenue Department)

  • The Department argued that the earlier order deleting penalty suffered from factual and legal mistakes.
  • It was contended that Section 154 permits rectification of mistakes apparent from the record.
  • The Revenue maintained that the assessee had failed to disclose complete tax liability and had wrongly omitted TDS deduction.
  • The Department argued that the rectification proceedings were separate and valid.

Respondent’s Arguments (Assessee)

  • The assessee argued that the CIT(A) had no power to review its own order under the guise of rectification.
  • It was submitted that Section 154 only permits correction of obvious mistakes and not re-appreciation of facts.
  • The assessee established bona fide belief and reasonable cause regarding non-deduction of TDS.
  • It relied upon judicial precedents involving similar expatriate salary disputes where penalty was deleted.

Court Findings / Observations

1. Rectification Cannot Become Review

The High Court upheld the ITAT’s finding that the CIT(A) exceeded jurisdiction under Section 154. The power of rectification cannot be exercised to reconsider the entire matter or substitute findings.

2. Supreme Court Already Settled the Penalty Issue

The Court noted that the Supreme Court in CIT v. Eli Lilly & Co. (India) Pvt. Ltd. had already considered the present assessee’s case among 104 similar matters and held that no penalty under Section 271C was leviable where reasonable cause existed.

3. Reasonable Cause Established

The Supreme Court had already accepted that the issue relating to expatriate salary TDS was a nascent and debatable issue and that the assessee acted under bona fide belief.

4. Revenue’s Parallel Proceedings Criticized

The Court criticized the Department for pursuing parallel proceedings without disclosing relevant pending proceedings before appellate forums.

Court Order / Final Decision

The Delhi High Court dismissed the Revenue’s appeals and declined to answer the question framed, holding that any contrary decision would conflict with the Supreme Court’s final decision on merits.

Thus:
 Revenue’s appeals dismissed
 ITAT order upheld
 Penalty under Section 271C not sustainable

Important Clarification

Scope of Section 154 Clarified

Section 154 is confined to correction of apparent mistakes and cannot be used as a mechanism for review or reconsideration of the entire case.

Sections Involved

  • Section 154 – Rectification of mistake apparent from record
  • Section 192 – Deduction of tax at source on salary
  • Section 201(1) & 201(1A) – Consequences of failure to deduct/pay TDS
  • Section 260A – Appeal to High Court
  • Section 271C – Penalty for failure to deduct tax at source
  • Section 273B – Reasonable cause exception to penalty

Section 271C Not Automatic

Penalty under Section 271C is not mandatory. If reasonable cause under Section 273B is established, penalty cannot be levied.

Bona Fide Belief as Valid Defence

Where the legal issue is debatable and the assessee acts bona fide, penalty provisions should not be invoked mechanically.

Link to download the order - https://delhihighcourt.nic.in/app/case_number_pdf/2017:DHC:4992-DB/SMD31082017ITA3712005.pdf

Disclaimer

This content is shared strictly for general information and knowledge purposes only. Readers should independently verify the information from reliable sources. It is not intended to provide legal, professional, or advisory guidance. The author and the organisation disclaim all liability arising from the use of this content. The material has been prepared with the assistance of AI tools.