TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2009 (4) TMI 802
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ees of the university was not discharged. According to the Assessing Officer, deductions must be made every month and to be paid over to the Central Government. He observed that for the assessment year 2000-01, tax was deducted in two installments and in five installments for the assessment year 2001-02. In respect of the assessment year 2002-03, the Assessing Officer has not brought out any details. Therefore, the Assessing Officer came to a finding that the assessee has failed to deduct tax at source properly. Therefore, interest was levied under section 201(1A) of the Act. In the first appeal, the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) held that the teaching staff and other staff of the university are paid allowances and arrears not exa....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... [2000] 245 ITR 13 wherein the court has held that interest levied under section 201(1A) is mandatory. The court has held in that case that even in cases where no tax was to be paid, ultimately, it has to deduct tax on payments and therefore, interest under section 201(1A) was chargeable. Shri R. Krishna Iyer, the learned chartered accountant appearing for the respondent university submitted that these cases are not cases of non-deduction of tax at source or non-payment of tax so deducted to the account of the Central Government. This is a case where there was some delay in deducting the tax and remitting the same to the Government. The assessee has explained the reasons for such delay. The assessee being a public institution is governed....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....358/ Coch/2003 dated May 13, 2005. We considered the matter in detail. In this case, the dispute is not regarding non-deduction of tax at source or non-payment of the tax deducted by the university. The assessee-university has deducted tax from payments made to the officers and employees and such deductions were paid over to the account of the Central Government. But there was some delay in deducting the tax and paying it to the Central Government. If the deduction and payment are monitored on month to month basis, academically, it is true that the salaries are to be paid every month and deductions have to be made exactly in tune with the monthly payments. But the problem with the university is that it has got more than 250 office....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ances to the officers and employees, tax has been deducted. Therefore, even though there can be a technical lapse in not deducting the tax on payments on accrual basis, deductions have been made on cash basis, barring a few exceptions of nominal delay. Therefore, we find that this is not a case coming under the purview of section 201(1A). The decisions of the hon'ble jurisdictional High Court relied on by the learned Additional Commissioner of Income-tax are in fact declaring the law regarding the binding nature of section 201(1A). The facts of the present case are nowhere near to the facts considered by the hon'ble jurisdictional High Court in these two cases. Therefore, in the facts and circumstances of the case, we hold that....