These are cross-appeals filed by assessee and Revenue directed against five separate orders of learned CIT(A)-XXX, Mumbai all dt. 28th July, 2003 and for sake of convenience, all these appeals are being disposed of by this common order. First, we take up appeals for asst. yr. 1998-99 because learned CIT(A) has passed speaking order in this year and same was followed in succeeding four years. appeal of assessee is ITA No. 6067/Mum/2003 and appeal of Revenue is 6491/Mum/2003. Briefly stated, facts are that survey action under s. 133A was carried out at office premises of assessee on 17th Sept., 2002 and in course of survey, statements of various employees were recorded in which, they have stated that they were paid vehicle expenses reimbursements on basis of monthly self-declarations which were not supported by any bill or voucher for undertaking outdoor official duties. Some of officers have admitted that they rarely used their vehicles for any outdoor official assignment or for commuting from residence to office and even in cases where they occasionally used their vehicles for any outdoor official assignments, no records, whatsoever, of such assignments were maintained by them or by their supervisory officers. It was noted that required criteria for such allowance were that employee must be owner of vehicle, which should be in running condition and he possess driving license. AO issued show-cause notice to explain as to why, such payments were made without TDS. In reply, it was submitted by assessee before AO that vehicle reimbursement is not allowance but reimbursement of actual expense incurred by concerned officer on use of his vehicle for outdoor official assignments. In second part of reply, assessee relied upon various judgments in support of its contention that once assessee has acted honestly and fairly and has arrived, at estimated income of employees for purpose of TDS, it cannot be treated as defaulter for any short deduction of tax at source. AO did not accept contentions of assessee and it was held by him that entire payment of vehicle reimbursement is part of salary for purpose of determination of tax liability under s. 192 of IT Act and he raised demand of Rs. 7,33,122 under s. 201(1) and of Rs. 6,34,199 as interest under s. 201(1A). On appeal, it was held by learned CIT(A) that entire amount paid by assessee on account of maintenance/repairs Rs. 7,76,901 is to be treated as perquisite as per s. 17(2)(iv) because as per him, it is obligation of employees to maintain vehicles, since they are owners of vehicles. Regarding petrol expenses, it was held by him that 50 per cent of petrol expenses be considered as spent for official duties and hence cannot be added in salary of employees and out of balance 50 per cent, deduction should be allowed to extent of Rs. 800 per month per employee for 8 months in this year i.e. from 1st Aug., 1997, when r. 2BB(10) was inserted and accordingly, he held that out of Rs. 16,63,507 paid on account of petrol expenses, Rs. 3,85,189 be considered for purpose of computing taxable salary under s. 192(1) of IT Act. Regarding levy of interest under s. 201(1A), it was held by him that levy of interest is mandatory and compensatory in nature but directed AO to recompute interest in view of relief granted by him. assessee is in further appeal before us against amounts totalling Rs. 12,29,400 directed by him for considering for TDS purpose under s. 192 and against confirming levy of interest under s. 201(1A). Revenue is in appeal against relief granted by learned CIT(A) to extent of 50 per cent of petrol expenses and for deduction as per rule 2BB(2)(10). It is submitted by learned Authorised Representative of assessee that scheme of vehicle reimbursement is on pp. 1 to 3 of paper book and sample declaration of employees are on pp. 4 to 28 of paper book. It is also submitted by him that in scheme, limits are fixed after considering category of officer, type of vehicles and distance of residence from work place. As per scheme, each employee has to give yearly declaration that amount claimed has been fully spent, to avail income-tax exemption and in this regard, he drawn our attention to para 3.5 of scheme on page No. 2 of paper book. It is also specified in scheme that if employee is absent from work for 10 days or more than 10 days in month, pro rata reimbursement on basis of attendance is specified in scheme and for this, he drawn our attention to para 2.4 of scheme on page No. 2 of paper book. It is also submitted that maintaining of documentation with regard to official use of vehicles is introduced from October, 2001 and accordingly after that date, assessee company is including entire amount in salary of employee after excluding exemption of Rs. 1,200 per month per employee because maintaining of such records was found non-practicable and in this regard, our attention was drawn to para V on page No. 3 of order of AO for asst. yr. 2002-03. Our attention was also drawn to page No. 16 of order of AO for asst. yr. 2002- 03 and it was pointed out that in that year, AO has calculated salary up to 30th Sept., 2001 only. It was submitted that survey was on 17th Sept., 2002 but assessee company has changed its system much prior to that of its own from October, 2001 and it shows that prior to that, assessee company had bona fide belief that no part of vehicle reimbursement was to be included as salary in hands of employees for s. 192. Regarding statements of 15 employees recorded in course of survey, based on which, adverse inference has been drawn by AO, it was submitted that out of them, AO has relied upon statements of 7 employees, out of whom, two employees are having company owned vehicles and two employees have joined after September, 2001. Remaining three employees are from finance Department, who are generally not going for outside work of company but scheme cannot be based on basis of facts of 3 employees in concern, where number of employees is in excess of 1000 and no adverse inference can be drawn for total payment of vehicle reimbursement on basis of statement of only 3 persons. Reliance was placed on following judicial pronouncements: (a) Lintas India Ltd. vs. Asstt. CIT (2006) 5 SOT 310 (Mumbai); (b) CIT vs. Oil & Natural Gas Corporation Ltd. (2000) 164 CTR (Guj) 129: (2002) 254 ITR 121 (Guj); (c) Dy. CIT vs. HCL Infosystems Ltd. (2005) 95 TTJ (Del) 1093: (2005) 4 SOT 428 (Del); (d) Infosys Technologies Ltd. vs. Dy. CIT (2003) 78 TTJ (Bang) 598: (2003) 86 ITD 312 (Bang); (e) CIT vs. Nestle India Ltd. (2000) 159 CTR (Del) 243: (2000) 243 ITR 435 (Del). learned Authorised Representative of assessee has submitted copy of various other judgments also in his paper book but none of them was referred to in course of arguments and hence, we do not deal with those judgments. As against this, learned Departmental Representative of Revenue supported orders of authorities below on this issue raised by assessee and supported order of AO for issues raised in appeals of Revenue. It is also submitted that self-declaration only is not proper and sufficient. Reliance was placed on following judicial pronouncements: (a) Life Insurance Corporation, Class-I Officers (Bombay) Association vs. Life Insurance Corporation of India & Anr. (1998) 229 ITR 510 (Mumbai); (b) National Federation of Insurance Fields Workers of India vs. Union of India (2005) 196 CTR (Jharkhand) 469: (2005) 276 ITR 127 (Jharkhand); (c) Bennet Coleman & Co. Ltd. vs. Mrs. V.P. Damle, ITO (1985) 47 CTR (Bom) 342: (1986) 157 ITR 812 (Bom). In rejoinder, it is submitted by Authorised Representative of assessee that fixed monthly amount paid to employees was not for repairs only but also towards insurance, road tax, etc. We have duly considered rival submissions and have gone through orders of authorities below. We find that assessee has framed detailed scheme for reimbursement of vehicle expenses after considering various factors such as category of officers, their place of residence and place of work, attendance etc. Each employee has to submit monthly declaration, based on which, payments were made as per scheme. In addition to that, each employee was supposed to submit annual declaration to effect that amount claimed has been fully spent, to avail income-tax exemption. We also find that in each monthly declaration submitted by employees, it has been certified that "Expenses incurred on maintenance and running of vehicles for official purposes during above period was not less than amount claimed." There was no requirement during this period to maintain detailed record of tours for official purposes as required from 1st Oct., 2001. After this date, assessee company has voluntarily started adding full amount of vehicle reimbursement less Rs. 1,200 per month per employee in salary of employees for s. 192. This goes to show bona fide of assessee company. If it is held that assessee company was under bona fide belief that vehicle reimbursement was n o t includible in salary for purpose of s. 192, assessee cannot be declared assessee in default even if there is some short deduction on account of wrong estimate as held by Tribunal in case of Lintas India Limited (supra). Regarding direction of learned CIT(A) that amount paid by assessee employer to employees on account of other than petrol expenses is covered by s. 17(2)(iv), we are not in agreement with him because we find that as per Item No. 2 of Table II under sub-r. (2) of r. 3 of IT Rules, it is provided that where employee owns car and actual running and maintenance charges (including remuneration of chauffeur, if any) are met or reimbursed by employer, and car is used wholly for official purposes, then, there will be no value of perquisites. In view of this, it cannot be said that maintenance of car is obligation of assessee if car is used for official purposes also and hence, learned CIT(A) was not correct in holding that entire expenses reimbursed other than petrol is to be added in salary income of employees, although it was held by him that 50 per cent of petrol expenses is to be considered as used for official purposes, meaning thereby that he also agrees that vehicles were used for official purposes also. Now, to see that whether only 50 per cent of expenses should be considered as expenses incurred for official purposes or it should be nil or full, we find that facts in case of ONGC Ltd. (supra) are identical with facts in present case. In that case also, requirement as per scheme called Conveyance Maintenance Reimbursement of Expenditure (CMRE) was that employee is in complete ownership and possession of one vehicle, which is to be maintained in good running condition and which is actually used for official journeys. In that case also, payment was based on self-certificate from employee that "Expenses incurred on maintenance and running of vehicles during relevant month is in excess of amount claimed." This certificate is similar to certificates given by employees in present case. In that case, such payments under CMRE were not taken into account for purpose of TDS. It w s held in that case that even if employee is found in course of his assessment that amount is not exempt in his hands, there will be no impact on estimate of income-tax payable on income of employee at time when such amount is paid. issue in present case is fully covered in favour of assessee by this judgment of Hon ble Gujarat High Court because facts are identical, and hence, by respectfully following this judgment, we decide this issue regarding liability under s. 201(1) of IT Act in favour of assessee because we find that judgments relied upon by learned Departmental Representative of Revenue are distinguishable on facts as discussed hereunder. Regarding issue of interest under s. 201(1A), we agree that interest is mandatory but AO has to recalculate interest after giving relief and since there will be no demand under s. 201(1) in view of our decision with regard to demand under s. 201(1), there will be no interest also under s. 201(1A) as consequence. Now, we discuss judgments cited by learned Departmental Representative of Revenue also. judgment of Hon ble jurisdictional High Court rendered in case of LIC, Class-I Officers (Bombay) Association (supra) relied upon by learned Departmental Representative of Revenue is not applicable in present case because facts are different. In that case, conveyance allowance was paid to all employees irrespective of place of residence and place of duty but in present case, payment is not made to all employees but to only those employees, who are owning vehicles and amount is determined keeping in mind distance between place of residence and place of work. judgment of Hon ble Jharkhand High Court also does not help Revenue in present case because that judgment is in exercise of Writ Jurisdiction under art. 226 of Constitution of India and hence it is held that"... this is not fit case where in exercise of our jurisdiction under art. 226 of Constitution of India, we should give blanket declaration that LIC of India is not bound to deduct tax at source on amounts of conveyance allowance and additional conveyance allowance paid to development officers of corporation...." It is seen that what has been held that no blanket declaration can be made that employer is not required to deduct TDS with regard to allowances, which are subject to exemption under s. 10(14). assessment year involved is also not mentioned in this judgment, which is also important in view of fact that with effect from 1st Oct., 2001, detailed records are to be kept for cars used for official purposes but in present case, we are concerned with period prior to that when there was no such requirement of keeping detailed records of official use of cars. In present case, this is not case of assessee that it be given blanket permit to consider any amount paid to employees as exempt under s. 10(14). case of assessee is that in view of scheme devised after using various criteria, amount reimbursed to employees on account of vehicle expenses is considered as for official purposes, particularly when employees are certifying that actual expenses incurred for official purposes is not less than reimbursement. In view of these facts, we find that Revenue does not get any help in present case from this judgment also. judgment of Hon ble jurisdictional High Court rendered in case of Bennet Coleman & Co. Ltd. (supra) also does not help Revenue in present case with regard to demand under s. 201(1) because in that judgment, facts are different. In that case, tax was deducted by employer under s. 192 but was not deposited and under these facts, it was held that assessee is assessee in default and also liable for interest under s. 201(1A). We, therefore, decide issue with regard to s. 201(1) in favour of assessee and issue with regard to interest liability under s. 201(1A) does not survive. In result, this appeal of assessee stands allowed and appeal of Revenue stands dismissed. Now, we take up remaining four appeals of assessee and four appeals of Revenue. issues involved are identical in these appeals and only difference is regarding amount and hence, as per our decision in asst. yr. 1998-99 as per para Nos. 6 and 7 above, all four appeals of assessee are allowed and all four appeals of Revenue are dismissed on same line. *** BSES LTD. v. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX