TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2017 (11) TMI 1717
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t and order of the Tribunal whereby the Tribunal has dismissed the appeal of the department. 3. This Court while admitting the matters framed the following questions of law:- In DBITA No. 25/2016 "i) Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the Tribunal as well as CIT(A) was justified in deleting the levy of interest u/s 201(A) of the Act of Rs. 58,05,368/- as the assessee failed to deduct tax at source as mandatorily required u/s 195 of the Act and wrongly gave benefit of the orders u/s 195/197 of the Act, beyond the amount mentioned therein. In DBITA No. 27/2016 "i) Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the Tribunal as well as CIT(A) was justified in deleting the levy of interest u/s 201....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ses of Section 201(1) of the said Act. Therefore, this finding of the Tribunal is set aside. Consequently, question No. 1 is decided in favour of the Revenue and against the assessee. 10. Insofar as the second question is concerned i.e., with regard to the interest payable under Section 201(1A) of the said Act, that is a mandatory provision, as already held by a Division Bench of this Court in the case of CIT v. ITC Limited, ITA No. 475/2010, dated 11.05.2011. The said Division Bench observed as under:- X X X X However, levy of interest under section 201(1A) is neither treated as penalty nor has the said provision been included in Section 273B to make "reasonableness of the cause" for the failure to deduct a relevant consideration. Sec....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....m 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." 5. The use of the word "shall" in s. 201(1A) makes the liability to pay interest in circumstances mentioned mandatory and there is no precondition of consideration of "reasonable cause" for nonpayment in time of tax deducted under s. 192 of the Act. We hold that s. 201(1A) of the Act is mandatory and the Tribunal was right in law in taking the view that the ITO was not required to take into consideration the "reasonable cause" for non-payment of taxes deducted under s. 192 of the Act. We may add here that in the case of Bennet Coleman & Co. Ltd. vs. V. P. Damle, Third ITO MANU/MH/0083/1984 : [1986]157ITR812(Bom), a le....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n of Gujrat High Court in case of Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Rishikesh Apartments Co-operative Housing Society Ltd. 253 ITR 310 wherein it has been held as under:- "If one looks at the fact whether Ravi Builder had in fact paid the amount of tax payable by it on the amount which was paid to it by the assessee, one finds that Ravi Builder had paid the tax. In fact for both the years, it had paid more advance tax than what was payable by it. Thus, the entire amount of tax which was payable by it had been duly paid. Had Ravi Builder not paid tax on the amount which it had received from the assessee, the Revenue could surely saddle the assessee with the liability of payment of interest under the provisions of Section 201(1A) of the Act. B....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he said years and the assessee accepted the said finding. Thus, it can very well be seen that the facts of the case which has been relied upon by Mr. Qureshi cannot help the Revenue for the reason that in the said case it was not known whether the person on whose behalf the tax was to be paid to the Revenue had in fact paid the tax payable by him. In the instant case, the contractor, viz., Ravi Builder, had admittedly paid the amount of tax payable by it and thus no loss of whatsoever nature had been caused to the Revenue on account of non-deduction of tax at source by the assessee. From the legal provisions discussed hereinabove, it is crystal clear that in the instant case Ravi Builder, on whose behalf the tax was to be paid by the asses....