Facts of the Case

Denso India Limited, engaged in manufacturing operations, had expatriate technicians deputed from its Japanese parent entity. These employees received salary partly in India and partly in Japan.

During a departmental survey, it was found that the overseas salary component paid in Japan had not been subjected to TDS in India under Section 192. Consequently, the Department alleged short deduction of TDS amounting to Rs. 5.74 crores.

The assessee explained that it had acted under a bona fide belief that salary paid outside India was not taxable in India and subsequently deposited revised tax and interest under Section 201(1) and 201(1A).

The Assessing Officer imposed penalty under Section 271C. However, the CIT(A) initially deleted the penalty on the ground of reasonable cause. Thereafter, the CIT(A), invoking Section 154, rectified its earlier order and restored the penalty. The ITAT set aside the rectification order holding it to be beyond jurisdiction, leading to appeals before the High Court.

Issues Involved

  1. Whether the CIT(A) could invoke Section 154 to alter its earlier appellate order in a manner amounting to review?
  2. Whether rectification under Section 154 can be exercised to revisit factual findings and conclusions?
  3. Whether failure to deduct TDS on overseas salary of expatriate employees attracted penalty under Section 271C?
  4. Whether the assessee had established “reasonable cause” under Section 273B to avoid penalty?

Petitioner’s Arguments (Revenue Department)

  • The Revenue contended that the CIT(A) had merely rectified apparent mistakes from record and had not reviewed its earlier order.
  • It was argued that material facts were overlooked while deleting the penalty initially.
  • The assessee had failed to correctly disclose tax liability and had incorrectly computed grossing up.
  • Therefore, penalty under Section 271C was rightly leviable due to failure to deduct TDS under Section 192.

Respondent’s Arguments (Assessee)

  • The assessee argued that Section 154 permits only correction of patent mistakes and does not empower review of a concluded order.
  • The rectification order completely reversed the earlier findings, which amounted to substantive review.
  • The assessee had acted under a genuine and bona fide belief regarding taxability of overseas salary.
  • Revised tax and interest had already been voluntarily deposited, showing absence of mala fide intent.

Court Findings / Court Order

The Delhi High Court upheld the ITAT’s order and dismissed the Revenue’s appeals.

The Court observed that:

  • Section 154 is confined to rectification of mistakes apparent from the record and cannot be used as a mechanism for review.
  • The CIT(A), by changing the foundation of its earlier order and re-appreciating facts, exceeded the limited jurisdiction under Section 154.
  • The Supreme Court in Commissioner of Income Tax v. Eli Lilly and Co. (India) Pvt. Ltd. had already held that in similar cases involving expatriate salary, penalty under Section 271C was not leviable where reasonable cause existed.
  • Since the Supreme Court had affirmed the assessee’s reasonable cause defense, no contrary view could be taken.

Accordingly, the appeals were dismissed.

Important Clarification

This judgment clarifies that:

  • Rectification cannot become review.
  • Section 154 is limited to obvious and patent mistakes.
  • Reassessment of evidence or alteration of legal conclusions falls outside Section 154.
  • Penalty under Section 271C is not automatic and is subject to Section 273B where reasonable cause is proved.
  • Bona fide legal misunderstanding on emerging tax issues can constitute reasonable cause.

Sections Involved

  • Section 154, Income-tax Act, 1961 (Rectification of mistake apparent from record)
  • Section 192, Income-tax Act, 1961 (TDS on salary)
  • Section 201(1) & 201(1A), Income-tax Act, 1961 (Failure to deduct/pay TDS)
  • Section 271C, Income-tax Act, 1961 (Penalty for failure to deduct tax at source)
  • Section 273B, Income-tax Act, 1961 (Reasonable cause defense)
  • Section 260A, Income-tax Act, 1961 (Appeal to High Court) 

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.