SUHAS CHANDRA SENT, J. - (1.) THE Tribunal has referred the following questions of law under section 256 (1) of the Income -tax Act, 1961 : '1. Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in holding that it was obligatory on the part of the assessee to deduct income -tax at source under section 192 of the Income -tax Act, 1961, from furlough pay which was payable in terms of the contract of service and was paid to the expatriate officers of the assessee in sterling in the U. K. outside the territories of India
(2.) WHETHER the Tribunal was justified in holding that the fact that the tax could not be recovered from the assessee because of the provisions of section 231 of the Income -tax Act, 1961, would not stand in the way of the liability of the assessee to pay interest; under section 201 (1A) of the Income -tax Act, 1961, and the proceedings initiated by the Income -tax Officer for levy of interest under section 201 (1A) of Act are not barred by limitation Whether the Tribunal was justified in holding that although the return regarding the deduction of tax in respect of the employees could have been filed to the Income -tax Officer mentioned in the Notification issued by the Central Board of Direct Taxes dated May 13, 1968, under section 126 of the Income -tax Act, 1961, the assumption of jurisdiction to treat the assessee as in default under section 201 and to levy interest under section 201 (1A) of the Income -tax Act, 1961, by the Income -tax Officer, H -Ward, Companies Dist. IV, Calcutta, cannot be said to be bad in law
(3.) WHETHER the Tribunal was justified in holding that the jurisdiction of the Income -tax Officer to pass the impugned order could not be challenged by the assessee at the appellate stage because at the most it could be said to be a case of concurrent jurisdiction and the objection should have been taken earlier;