Allowing the appeals the Court held  that all these cases were with respect to the belated remittance of the tax deducted at source by the assessee and not a case of non-deduction of tax at source at all and therefore, section 271C(1)(a) shall be applicable. As the respective assessees had remitted the tax deducted at source though belatedly and these were not cases of non-deduction of tax at source at all they were not liable to penalty under section 271C of the Act. Any question of applicability of section 273B of the Act did not arise.  Courts also held that The Central Board of Direct Taxes Circular No. 551 dated January 23, 1990 ([1990] 183 ITR (St.) 7) deals with the circumstances under which section 271C was introduced in the statute, for levy of penalty. Paragraph 16.5 of the circular talks about the levy of penalty for failure to deduct tax at source. It also takes note of the fact that if there is any delay in remitting the tax, it will attract payment of interest under section 201(1A) of the Act and because of the gravity of the mischief involved, it may involve prosecution proceedings as well, under section 276B of the Act. Any omission to deduct the tax at source may lead to loss to the Department and hence remedial measures have been provided by incorporating the provision to ensure that tax liability to that extent would stand shifted to the shoulders of the party who failed to effect deduction, in the form of penalty. On deduction of tax, if there is delay in remitting the amount to Department, it had to be satisfied with interest as payable under section 201(1A) of the Act, besides the liability to face prosecution proceedings, if launched in appropriate cases, in terms of section 276B of the Act. Even the Board has taken note of the fact that no penalty is envisaged under section 271C of the Act for non-deduction tax at source and no penalty is envisaged under section 271C for belated remittance/payment/deposit of the tax deducted at source. (AY. 2003-04, 2010-11 to 2012-13)