9911796707
TMI Blog1995 (11) TMI 116X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nd the difference in the actual figures in monthly deductions, he levied interest under s. 201(1A) of the Act. 3. On appeal, the learned CIT(A) deleted the amounts of interest observing as under: "A reading of s. 201 with s. 192 of the IT Act will show that the duty of the person responsible for paying any income chargeable under the head "salary" is to deduct the correct amount of tax at source on the amount payable computed on the basis of rates in force in the financial year in which the payment is made. He is also empowered to increase or reduce the amount to be deducted for the purpose of adjusting any excess or deficiency arising out of any previous deduction or failure to deduct tax during the financial year. In other words, th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... as that of the assessee cannot remain constant as the amount of salary vary from month to month depending upon the actual number of employees receiving actual payment of salary; the total amount of salary, arrears, allowances and special incentives received by the employees from time to time. The learned counsel drew our attention to the copies of Form No. 24 placed on record and submitted that from these monthly TDS returns, it can be seen that the tax has been deducted regularly and paid in accordance with the provisions of law and there is no default on the part of the assessee so as to attract the penal provisions of s. 201(1A) of the Act. In support of his contentions, he also placed reliance on the decisions in the cases of Executive ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d allowances and special incentives received by the employees and the like from time to time. Hence the provisions of s. 192(3) will squarely apply to the facts of the assessee's case. 6. In the case of ITO vs. Registrar of Guru Nanak Dev University, the assessee being a person responsible for deduction of tax from salaries had computed total tax at Rs. 10,27,690 out of which tax amounting to Rs. 3,67,703 was paid from April, 1989 to January, 1990 and Rs. 1,68,373 in the month of February, 1990 whereas the balance amount of tax of Rs. 4,91,612 was deposited in March, 1990. The assessee contended before the Dy. CIT(A) while agitating against the interest of Rs. 42,308 levied under s. 201(1A) by the ITO that the shortfall of tax amounting ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
