SUHAS CHANDRA SEN, J. - (1.) THE Tribunal has referred the following questions of law under S. 256(1) of the IT Act, 1961 : "Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, (i) the Tribunal was right in law in holding that the assessee had failed to comply with the relevant p (ii) the Tribunal's decision that the levy and collection of interest under sub-s. (1A) of S. 201 is not h
(2.) IN this case the assessment year involved is 1970-71 for which the corresponding accounting per The facts as found by the Tribunal are as under : The assessee, an employer-company, had six expatriate (contract) employees during the financial y the contract staff on different dates. This statement, however, revealed that although these deposit above. Obviously, therefore, the employer had failed to comply with the relevant provisions of S. 19 ITO passed the order under S. 201(1A) of the Act again on 31st June, 1979, charging interest of Rs.
(3.) BEFORE the AAC the assessee raised the following points : (i) The obligation to deduct tax under S. 192 is confined to the salary actually paid, salary due but n (ii) Where the salary is tax-free the tax element of the salary representing a perquisite is not payab (iii) Tax in respect of the net salary actually paid to the employees has been correctly deducted and (iv) The proceeding for the recovery of the interest is barred by limitation as prescribed in S. 231 of The assessee relied on the decision in the case of CIT vs. Dunlop Rubber Company (India) Ltd. (198 ;