N.L. Kalra, A.M.: assessee has filed appeal against order of learned CIT(A)-IV, Bangalore dt. 9th Jan., 2006. Before discussing grounds of appeal, it will be relevant to state facts in brief. appellant purchased immovable property in Bangalore vide registered sale deed dt. 23rd Oct., 2001. sum of Rs. 25,00,000 was paid on 5th March, 2001 and balance sale consideration of Rs. 75,00,000 was paid at time of registration of sale deed i.e. on 23rd Oct., 2001. appellant has mentioned that she was not aware of fact that she is liable to deduct tax at source from payments by her for reason that seller was non- resident. Inadvertently, appellant failed to deduct tax at source from such payment made. seller paid advance tax of Rs. 4,25,126. seller filed return on 18th July, 2002 in which long-term capital gain of Rs. 16,80,782 was disclosed in respect of property purchased by appellant. seller filed revised return on 23rd March, 2003 vide which income of Rs. 62,28,370 was declared. Along with revised return, assessee paid not only tax but also interest under ss. 234B and 234C. Total amount paid along with revised return was of Rs. 10,30,674. appellant received order under s. 201(1A) dt. 20th July, 2003 vide which liability of interest of Rs. 75,560 was imposed. appellant filed appeal against that order and learned CIT(A) vide order dt. 31st March, 2004 cancelled order under s. 201(1A). Revenue has passed fresh order under s. 201(1A) on 20th Oct., 2004 vide which demand of Rs. 4,78,640 has been created. learned AO has charged interest under s. 201(1A) upto 31st Oct., 2004. assessee filed appeal against order dt. 28th Oct., 2004 and that appeal has been dismissed by learned CIT(A) vide order dt. 9th Jan, 2006. Against that order of learned CIT(A), assessee is in appeal before us. first grievance of appellant is that AO was not legally competent to pass order under s. 201(1A) on 28th Oct., 2004 when earlier order under same section for same default was cancelled by learned CIT(A) vide order dt. 31st March, 2004. Before us, learned Authorised Representative submitted that Revenue has not challenged order of learned CIT(A) dt. 31st March, 2004 vide which (order) under s. 201(1A) was cancelled. In view of such fact, AO became functus officio. AO was not legally competent to issue another notice calling upon appellant to show cause as to why appellant should not be held as assessee in default. learned Authorised Representative submitted that once order is cancelled without any direction of redoing same, AO could not have passed order under same section and for same default. We have heard both parties. According to us issue raised before us has been answered by jurisdictional High Court in case of Ashok & Co. vs. CIT (1991) 100 CTR (Kar) 174: (1992) 195 ITR 786 (Kar). In that case, assessment order was cancelled without order of remand. learned High Court held that AO was competent to make order of assessment in pursuance of proceedings initiated by him. It will be relevant to quote following extract at p. 791: "There may be third category of cases wherein appellate authority may set aside original order of assessment on ground that said order was void such as, when assessing authority fails to follow principle of natural justice or when incompetent officer makes assessment order; in this category of cases, specific order of remand is unnecessary because competent assessing authority can always make proper order provided further proceedings are not barred by any rule of limitation." In instant case, learned CIT(A) vide order dt. 31st March, 2004 cancelled order as according to learned CIT(A), principle of natural justice has not been followed. Cancellation of order under such circumstances is covered by decision of jurisdictional High Court wherein it has been mentioned that it is unnecessary to mention that order may be remanded. Delhi High Court in case of VLS Finance Ltd. vs. CIT (2007) 207 CTR (Del) 401: (2007) 289 ITR 286 (Del), quashed order under s. 142(2A) as notice was not given to assessee before passing such order. After quashing of notice, it is mentioned at p. 302 that Revenue can pass order under s. 142(2A) if Revenue is permitted for passing rider (sic order) as per period of limitation. Keeping in view of decision of jurisdictional High Court, it is held that AO was competent to pass fresh order. second grievance of appellant is that learned CIT(A) should have held that appellant is not liable to deduct tax under s. 195 as seller was non-resident HUF. Before us, learned Authorised Representative argued that property, which was purchased, is situated in India. payment was made in India at time of registration. appellant could not have been aware of fact that sellers are non-residents. On other hand, learned Departmental Representative supported order of learned CIT(A). It is seen from order of learned CIT(A) that seller has filed returns in status of non-resident and has also been assessed as non- resident. As per agreement of sale of property, it was clear that seller was non-resident as address mentioned in agreement showed that they were residing abroad. There is no iota of evidence to suggest that appellant entertained belief that sellers were residents. Hence learned CIT(A) has rightly held that appellant was liable to deduct tax under s. 195 of IT Act. third grievance of appellant is that learned AO has wrongly charged interested under s. 201(1A) upto 31st Oct., 2004. Learned Authorised Representative relied on judgment of Delhi High Court in case of CIT vs. Adidas India Marketing (P) Ltd. (2006) 206 CTR (Del) 499: (2007) 288 ITR 379 (Del) in which it has been held that interest under s. 201 cannot be levied after payment of tax. It was submitted that seller has filed revised return on 23rd March, 2003 and paid entire tax along with interest. Hence there is no liability of interest under s. 201(1A) beyond 23rd March, 2003. Learned Departmental Representative argued that interest under s. 201(1A) is chargeable upto date of order. AO has passed order on 27th Oct., 2004 and therefore learned CIT(A) has rightly charged interest upto 31st Oct., 2004. We have heard parties. Deduction of tax at source is one of modes of recovery of tax. deductor pays tax on behalf of deductee. As per s. 191 of IT Act, if deductor fails to make requisite deduction of tax at source, deductee would be liable to pay income-tax on amount received by him as income. Delhi High Court held that there is no justification for Revenue to seek to levy interest for any period after date which tax is actually paid. Here there is no dispute that tax of seller has been paid along with interest while following (sic-filing) revised return on 23rd March, 2003. No tax was payable after that date once interest under s. 201(1A) charged upto date when tax is paid either by deductor or by deductee. In following cases, it has been held that interest under s. 201(1A) can be charged only upto date of payment of tax by payee. (1) ITO vs. Alfred Allan Advertising (2006) 8 SOT 312 (Del); (2) Singapore Airlines Ltd. vs. ITO (2006) 7 SOT 84 (Chennai). next grievance of appellant is that learned CIT(A) has erred in holding that interest under s. 201(1A) is chargeable on amount which was required to be deducted irrespective of fact that tax actually paid by non-resident was less. Before dealing with this ground of appeal, it will be relevant to reproduce s. 201(1A) as follows: " 201 (1)...... (1A) Without prejudice to provisions of sub-s. (1), if any such person, principal officer or company as is referred to in that sub-section does not deduct (the whole or any part of tax) or after deducting fails to pay 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 amount of such tax from date on which such tax was deductible to date on which such tax is actually paid and such interest shall be paid before furnishing quarterly statement for each quarter in accordance with provisions of sub-s. (3) of s. 200." accordance with provisions of sub-s. (3) of s. 200." As per above section, interest is chargeable on amount of such tax from date of which such tax was deductible to date on which such tax was actually paid. In instant case, tax has actually been paid not by deductor but by deductee. Total tax payable as per assessment order of seller is Rs. 12,74,629. sum of Rs. 4,25,126 was paid in advance. Hence tax which was payable by seller in respect of capital gains accruing on sale of property after adjustment of advance tax only Rs. 8,49,503. On this amount, seller has paid interest under ss. 234B and 234C from 1st April, 2002 till date of order i.e. 9th May, 2003. As per AO, total tax deductible at rates in force was Rs. 19,38,000. AO himself has given credit of advance tax. AO has calculated interest under s. 201(1A) on sum of Rs. 19,38,000 - Rs. 4,25,126 (advance tax) = Rs. 15,12,874. On this sum, AO has charged interest under s. 201(1A). Deductee has not been given credit of tax so deductible. tax payable by deductee is only Rs. 8,49,503. When Revenue is not paying any interest to deductee on amounts so deductible by charging interest from deductor then it is not justifiable to charge interest from deductor of such amount. Interest is chargeable on amount of tax actually paid. wording in s. 201(1A) is that interest is to be charged on such tax which was not paid. Accordingly it is held that interest under s. 201(1A) will be chargeable on sum of Rs. 8,49,503 from date on which tax was deductible. In result appeal is partly allowed. *** MRS. MEENA S. PATIL v. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX