banner_ad

Penalty for delay in remittance of TDS

This query is : Resolved 

09 December 2009 Dear Members,

Please reply with reference to statutory provisions and judicial pronouncement.


Whether a deductor can be treated as an assessee in default u/s 201 for delay in remittance of TDS? In this case, the amount which remain to be paid is interest only.


If the answer to above is in affirmative, whether the deductor can be subjected to penal provisions u/s 221(1)?


Whether the case law, "Shreeniwas And Sons Versus Income-Tax Officer, 'B' Ward, Asansol, And Others.[1974] 96 ITR 562, will come to the rescue of the deductor?

10 December 2009 Calcutta High Court decision Cited by u can be relied upon.

10 December 2009 Section 201
CONSEQUENCES OF FAILURE TO DEDUCT OR PAY.
(1) If any such person and in the cases referred to in section 194, the principal officer and the company of which he is the principal officer does not deduct or after deducting fails to pay the tax as required by or under this Act, he or it shall, without prejudice to any other consequences which he or it may incur, be deemed to be an assessee in default in respect of the tax :
Provided that no penalty shall be charged under section 221 from such person, principal officer or company unless the Assessing Officer is satisfied that such person or principal officer or company, as the case may be, has without good and sufficient reasons failed to deduct and pay the tax.
(1A) Without prejudice to the provisions of sub-section (1), if any such person, principal officer or company as is referred to in that sub-section does not deduct or after deducting fails to pay the tax as required by or under this Act, he or it shall be liable to pay simple interest at eighteen per cent per annum on the amount of such tax from the date on which such tax was deductible to the date on which such tax is actually paid.
(2) Where the tax has not been paid as aforesaid after it is deducted, the amount of the tax together with the amount of simple interest thereon referred to in sub-section (1A) shall be a charge upon all the assets of the person, or the company, as the case may be, referred to in sub-section (1).
Related Judgements
TUTICORIN VEGETABLE MARKETING CO. (P) LTD. v. INCOME-TAX OFFICER & ANR.
MITTAL STEEL LTD. v. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX & ANR.


You need to be the querist or approved CAclub expert to take part in this query .
Click here to login now


CCI Pro

Similar Resolved Queries


loading


Unanswered Queries



CCI Pro
Meet our CAclubindia PRO Members

Follow us
add to google news



Answer Query



Company
Featured 02 May 2026
Senior Executive

hitesh chandwani & co

Pune

B.Com

View Details
Company
Featured 29 April 2026
Manager- Finance and Compliance

Naveen Fintech Pvt Ltd

Kolkata

CA Inter

View Details
Company
Featured 14 April 2026
GST CONSULTANT

Abhishek G Agrawal & Co.

Korba

CA Final

View Details
Company
Featured 13 April 2026
GST CONSULTANCY

Abhishek G Agrawal & Co.

Korba

CA Final

View Details
Company
Featured 28 March 2026
Accountant

Ashok Amol & Associates

New Delhi

B.Com

View Details
Company
Featured 28 March 2026
CA Final

Ashok Amol & Associates

New Delhi

CA Final

View Details
Company
Featured ARTICLESHIP 19 March 2026
Article Assistant

Gupta Sachdeva & Co. Chartered Accountants

New Delhi

CA Final

View Details
Company
Featured 14 March 2026
Associate CA

N N V Satish&co

Hyderabad

CA

View Details