ORDER
B.L. Khatri, A.M.
1. Both these appeals have been filed by the assessee against two different orders of the learned CIT(A), dt. 21st Nov., 2003, for the financial years 1998-99 and 1999-2000. In these appeals, the solitary grievance of the assessee is as under:
“The learned CIT(A) erred in confirming the levy of interest under Section 2O1(1A) of IT Act, 1961, amounting to Rs. 82,829 for the financial year 1998-99 and Rs. 72,904 for the financial year 1999-2000.”
2. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee is a Board of Secondary Education, established by the Rajasthan Government. The AO held that the tax so deducted under Section 192(1) of the Act was not in accordance with law and the same was required to be deducted evenly in every month. The learned CIT(A) confirmed the charging of interest under Section 201(1A).
3. During the course of arguments, the learned Authorised Representative explained that due to certain reasons, TDS could not be deducted in equal instalments of twelve months. However, the deficiency was made good before the end of the year. The learned Authorised Representative relied upon the provisions contained in Section 192(3) of the Act, the decision of Tribunal, Mumbai Bench ‘H’, in the case of Vinsons v. Third ITO (2004) 83 TTJ (Mumbai) 594 : (2004) 89 ITD 267 (Mumbai) and also some other case law.
4. The learned Departmental Representative relied upon the orders of the lower authorities.
5. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the materials available on record. Sub-s. (3) of Section 192 provides that at the time of making any deduction, the person responsible can increase or reduce the amount to be deducted under this section for the purpose of adjusting any excess or deficiency arising out of any previous deduction or failure to deduct during the financial year. In this case, the person responsible for deducting the tax had made good the deficiency before close of the financial year. Therefore, we are of the opinion that the learned CIT(A) had grossly erred in confirming the levy of interest under Section 201(1A) of the Act on the responsible person. Following the decision of Tribunal, Mumbai Bench ‘H’, in the case of Vinsons v. Third ITO (supra), we reverse the order of the learned CIT(A). The AO is’ directed to delete the interest charged under Section 201(1A) of the Act for both the years.
6. In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed.