Bonafide TDS Certificate Issuance: Insights from Harsiddh Construction Pvt. Ltd Case

The Tax Deducted at Source (TDS) framework plays a vital role in ensuring timely collection of revenue and streamlining compliance within the Indian income tax system. However, procedural oversights—particularly in issuing TDS certificates—can attract statutory penalties, even if the core obligation of tax deduction and deposit is duly fulfilled. The case of Commissioner of Income-Tax v. Harsiddh Construction Pvt. Ltd. (2000), decided by the Gujarat High Court, serves as an insightful precedent in this regard.

In this case, the High Court addressed whether the failure to issue TDS certificates within the prescribed timeline, though unintentional and without revenue loss, warranted a penalty under Section 272A(2)(g) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The ruling illuminates the nuanced interplay between technical defaults and the principle of bona fide conduct in tax administration.

Facts of the Case

The facts were largely undisputed. Harsiddh Construction Pvt. Ltd., the assessee, had duly deducted tax at source under Section 194C of the Income Tax Act, pertaining to payments made to contractors. This deducted amount was deposited into the Government account within the prescribed time. Therefore, from a compliance standpoint, the assessee had satisfied its primary obligations—i.e., timely deduction and deposit of TDS.

However, the lapse arose in relation to Section 203 of the Act, which mandates that a certificate specifying the amount and rate of TDS be furnished to the deductee within a stipulated time as prescribed by Rule 31 of the Income Tax Rules, 1962. Harsiddh Construction failed to issue these certificates within the specified period.

Get the complete breakdown of TDS & TCS under The Finance Act, 2025 - Click Here 

Penalty Proceedings under Section 272A(2)(g)

Consequently, the Revenue authorities initiated penalty proceedings under Section 272A(2)(g), which provides for penalties where the deductor fails to furnish TDS certificates as required under Section 203. Upon discovery of the lapse, a show-cause notice was promptly issued by the Deputy Commissioner on 24th June 1994.

Before the Tribunal, the assessee contended that the lapse was neither willful nor contumacious but stemmed from a genuine belief that such certificates could be issued at the end of the financial year, when accounts were finalised. It was further argued that there was no loss of revenue, no tax evasion, and no grievance raised by any deductee due to the delay in issuance of certificates.

Tribunal’s Observations and Findings

The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) accepted the assessee’s contention, holding that the default was only technical in nature. The Tribunal noted:

• The tax had been deducted and deposited on time.
• There was no intention to evade tax or violate the law.
• The delay in issuing certificates was under a bona fide impression of compliance at the financial year-end.
• No deductee had complained or suffered due to the delay.

Crucially, the Tribunal emphasised the absence of mens rea or a deliberate breach. Relying on the Supreme Court’s decision in Hindustan Steel Ltd. v. State of Orissa (1972), the Tribunal concluded that a mere technical or venial breach, absent any willful default or dishonest intention, does not warrant the imposition of penalty.

Revenue’s Argument Before the High Court

The Revenue sought to challenge the Tribunal’s findings before the Gujarat High Court under Section 256(2), asserting that the provisions of Section 272A(2)(g) would be rendered meaningless if such defaults were excused merely on grounds of good faith.

To support their argument, the Revenue relied on the Supreme Court decision in Addl. CIT v. I.M. Patel & Co. (1992), wherein the Court upheld mandatory penalty for belated return filing under Section 271(1)(a), noting that statutory breaches invite consequences even without mens rea, unless the statute explicitly provides otherwise.

Get the complete breakdown of TDS & TCS under The Finance Act, 2025 - Click Here

High Court’s Analysis and Ruling

The Gujarat High Court upheld the Tribunal’s decision, declining to entertain the Revenue’s reference application. The Court drew a distinction between the present case and I.M. Patel & Co. on several grounds:

• In I.M. Patel, the default pertained to non-filing of returns for multiple years, resulting in assessment of higher income than reported—a clear case of concealment and prolonged delay.
• In contrast, Harsiddh Construction had complied with substantive TDS obligations and only faltered on the procedural aspect of timely certificate issuance.

Citing Hindustan Steel, the High Court reiterated that the imposition of penalty is not automatic and depends on the surrounding circumstances. It observed that penalty is a quasi-criminal measure, and discretion must be exercised judicially.

Notably, the Court found that:

1. The failure to issue certificates on time arose from a genuine misunderstanding.
2. The certificates were eventually issued; no party claimed to be prejudiced.
3. The Revenue suffered no financial loss or tax evasion.

In light of these findings, the High Court concluded that the default was not wilful or deliberate, and therefore, no question of law arose requiring further adjudication.

Jurisprudential Takeaways

The Harsiddh Construction ruling reinforces several key principles governing the imposition of penalties in tax law:

1. Substance over form: Mere procedural lapses, without mala fide intent or revenue loss, do not automatically invite penal consequences.
2. Mens rea is not always necessary: While some statutory provisions, like Section 271(1)(c), operate regardless of intention, others, especially those dealing with procedural defaults, require a contextual examination of conduct.
3. Judicial discretion in penalty matters: Authorities must consider the assessee’s bona fides, history of compliance, and actual impact of the default before imposing penalties.
4. Consistency with Hindustan Steel: The ruling aligns with the long-standing precedent that penalties are not to be imposed for every minor infraction if done under a genuine belief or mistake.

Get the complete breakdown of TDS & TCS under The Finance Act, 2025 - Click Here

Practical Implications for Taxpayers

For deductors and tax professionals, the judgment underscores the importance of:

• Meticulous compliance with procedural requirements under the Income Tax Act and Rules.
• Maintaining documentation and evidence of timely deduction and deposit.
• Issuing TDS certificates promptly to avoid penalties and ensure deductees can claim credit.
• Demonstrating bona fide conduct and absence of prejudice in case of inadvertent lapses.

In scenarios where procedural defaults occur, assessees may rely on this decision to argue that such lapses should not attract penal provisions if the conduct is innocent, the default is promptly rectified, and no stakeholder suffers any loss.

Conclusion

The Harsiddh Construction Pvt. Ltd. case stands as a significant precedent affirming that not all procedural failures should be treated with a punitive lens. Courts and quasi-judicial bodies must evaluate the context, intention, and impact of such defaults before invoking penalties.

While this judgment does not dilute the importance of procedural compliance, it certainly provides a safeguard for genuine taxpayers who make errors without mala fide intent. As tax laws grow increasingly complex, such judicial guidance becomes vital in preserving the balance between enforcement and fairness in the tax ecosystem.

Support our journalism by subscribing to Taxscan premium. Follow us on Telegram for quick updates