JUDGMENT
S.M. Jhunjhunuwala, J.
1. By this reference under s. 256(1) of the IT Act, 1961, made at the instance of the applicant-assessee, the Tribunal has referred the following question of law to this Court for opinion : “Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in taking the view that the provisions of s. 201(1A) for levying interest are mandatory and the ITO is not required to take into consideration the reasonable cause for non-payment of taxes deducted under s. 192 ?”
2. The assessee is a private limited company. The assessment years concerned are 1973-74 to 1979-80. During the previous years relevant to the assessment years under consideration, the assessee delayed payment of tax into the Government Treasury, which the assessee had collected from the salary paid to its employees. The ITO, therefore, proceeded to calculate interest under s. 201(1A) of the IT Act, 1961 (for short, referred to as “the Act”), from the date on which the salaries were payable to the employees to the date on which the tax was actually paid by the assessee into the Government Treasury on each occasion and demanded the same from the assessee. The assessee appealed before the CIT(A) in respect of the interest levied by the ITO for the assessment years under consideration. The main ground on which the assessee objected to the levy of interest was extreme financial difficulties of the assessee. The CIT(A) upheld the order passed by the ITO. The assessee then filed an appeal before the Tribunal and the Tribunal approved the finding of the CIT(A). It is in these circumstances, the above question of law has been referred to this Court for opinion, at the instance of the assessee.
3. The basic question pertains to the interpretation of s. 201(1A) of the Act. According to learned counsel, Mr. Arun Sathe, appearing for the assessee, s. 201(1A) of the Act is not mandatory and the precondition of reasonable cause for non-payment of taxes deducted under s. 192 of the Act ought to have been considered while levying interest under s. 201(1A) of the Act.
4. We have perused s. 201(1A) of the Act, which reads as under :
“201(1A). Without prejudice to the provisions of sub-s. (1), if any such person, principal officer or company as is referred to in that sub-section does not deduct or after deducting fails to pay the tax as required by or under this Act, he or it shall be liable to pay simple interest at twelve per cent per annum 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 non-payment 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 (1986) 157 ITR 812 (Bom), a learned single judge of this Court has taken the same view on the interpretation of s. 201(1A) which we have taken herein.
6. Accordingly, we answer the question referred in the affirmative, that is, in favour of the Revenue and against the assessee. There shall be no order as to costs.