TMI Blog2004 (8) TMI 14X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... R. JUDGMENT The judgment of the court was delivered by S. Sankarasubban J. - These appeals are filed by the same assessee for different assessment years and a common question arises in all these cases and hence, they are heard together. The assessee is the Ernakulam District Co-operative Bank Limited engaged in the business of banking. The assessee is a deductor of tax within the meaning of section 192 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. During the previous years relevant to the assessment years 1986-87, 1987-88, 1988-89, 1989-90 and 1990-91, the assessee deducted tax at source from the salary paid to the employees on regular basis. Subsequently, the Income-tax Officer noted that no tax had been deducted or paid on the salary advance paid t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e was failure to pay the tax deducted as required by the Act. The Income-tax Officer passed identical orders under section 201(1A) of the Income-tax Act on September 24, 1993, for the assessment years 1986-87 to 1990-91 rejecting the explanation given by the assessee and levying interest. Appeals filed before the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) were allowed and the levy of interest under section 201(1A) was cancelled. The first appellate authority found that the assessee had deducted the tax from the salary of the employees on the salary income honestly estimated by it and had also paid the tax as required. Against the order passed by the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), appeals were filed before the Tribunal. The Tribunal set a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... only if it is found that the assessee had acted mala fide. In this case, the assessee acted bona fide and, hence, this section should not be invoked against it. We are not able to appreciate this argument. In Pentagon Engineering Pvt. Ltd. v. CIT [1995] 212 ITR 92 (Bom), it was held as follows: "use of the word 'shall' in section 201(1A) made the liability to pay interest, in the circumstances mentioned, mandatory and there was no pre-condition of consideration of 'reasonable cause' for non-payment in time of tax deducted under section 192. Therefore, the Income-tax Officer was not required to take into consideration the 'reasonable cause' for non-payment of taxes deducted under section 192". In CIT v. Prem Nath Motors (Pvt.) Ltd. [2002] ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
