JUDGMENT A.V. Srinivasa Reddy, J.—Being aggrieved by the order passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Bangalore Bench, the Revenue has preferred this appeal raising the following questions of law, for our decision : "(a) Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is correct in law in entertaining the appeals relating to levy of interest under Section 201(1A) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, when the orders levying interest under Section 201(1A) of the Act are not appealable orders ? (b) Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is correct in law in holding that the respondent-assesses was not obliged to deduct tax at source in respect of the amounts credited in its books of account as there was no agreement in force ? (c) Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is correct in law in holding that the respondent-assesses was not obliged to deduct tax at source in respect of the amounts credited in the books of account ?" 2. The respondent-assesses herein is a resident Indian company carrying on its business in collaboration with its major shareholder, Robert Bosch, GmbH of Germany, a non-resident company. The collaboration agreement was started in 1961 and renewed from time to time with an interval of five years. The agreement was valid till December 31, 1985. The Government of India granted approval for renewal on December 10, 1985. The foreign collaborator was not satisfied with the Government's order since royalty payments were restricted on certain items and rates of royalty on items in respect of which the Government permitted royalty payments were not to the satisfaction of the foreign collaborator. Finally, after the Government's order dated December 12, 1988, the agreement was formalised and signed on February 15, 1989, with retrospective effect from January 1, 1986, for a period of six years. In the meanwhile, however, the foreign collaborator did not discontinue or snap its ties with the assesses-company but continued its service uninterruptedly. On its part, the assesses-company went on crediting the amounts payable to the collaborator to a suspense account like "the amounts payable". The assesses did not deduct tax at source as per Section 195(1) of the Act read with the Explanation thereto. Hence, interest under Section 201(1A) was levied by the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax (TDS) for the assesses's said default. The assesses did not deduct tax at source as per Section 195(1) of the Act read with the Explanation thereto. Hence, interest under Section 201(1A) was levied by the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax (TDS) for the assesses's said default. The assesses preferred appeals before the Appellate Commissioner. The Commissioner dismissed the appeals holding that the tax was deductible at source. It was further held that the assesses having failed to do so deduct the tax at source, interest was rightly charged under Section 201(1A) from the date on which tax was so deductible till its payment. The assesses took the matter in appeal before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Bangalore Bench; Bangalore. The Tribunal allowed the appeal in favour of the assesses holding' that there was no agreement in force at the relevant point of time. Hence, the present appeals by the Revenue. 3. We have heard learned counsel on both sides. Question No. 1 : 4. The facts emerging from the record reveal that the assesses not only challenged the order directing payment of interest but also the order passed by the Assistant Commissioner deeming him to be an assesses in default in respect of the tax to be paid under Section 195 of the Act. 5. Section 246(1) of the Act lists out the orders that are appealable. It reads : "246. (1) Subject to the provisions of Sub-section (2), any assesses aggrieved by any of the following orders of an Assessing Officer (other than the Deputy Commissioner) may appeal to the Deputy Commissioner (Appeals) against such order-- . . . (i) an order under Section 201 ;" 6. It reads : "246. (1) Subject to the provisions of Sub-section (2), any assesses aggrieved by any of the following orders of an Assessing Officer (other than the Deputy Commissioner) may appeal to the Deputy Commissioner (Appeals) against such order-- . . . (i) an order under Section 201 ;" 6. Section 201 deals with the consequences of failure to deduct or pay an amount due as tax and it lays down : "(1) If any such person and in the cases referred to in Section 194, the principal officer and the company of which he is the principal officer does not deduct or after deducting fails to pay the tax as required by or under this Act, he or it shall, without prejudice to any other consequences which he or it may incur, be deemed to be an assesses in default in respect of the tax : Provided that no penalty shall be charged under Section 221 from such person, principal officer or company unless the Assessing Officer is satisfied that such person or principal officer or company, as the case may be, has without good and sufficient reasons failed to deduct and pay the tax. (1A) Without prejudice to the provisions of Sub-section (1), if any such person, principal officer or company as is referred to in that subsection 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 eighteen 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." 7. While Section 201(1) is concerned with the determination of an assesses as an "assesses in default", Section 201(1A) deals with the aftermath of such determination and how the "assesses in default" should be dealt with for such default. In a case where the assesses challenges the very determination as wrong, the appeal would lie from the order made under section 201(1) of the Act and not from the one made under Section 201(1A). An order made under Section 201(1) of the Act, as could be seen from the relevant provision excerpted above, is appealable under Section 246(1) of the Act and not under Section 248 as contended by the Revenue. An order made under Section 201(1) of the Act, as could be seen from the relevant provision excerpted above, is appealable under Section 246(1) of the Act and not under Section 248 as contended by the Revenue. An appeal under Section 248 is provided for a person who, having deducted tax and paid the same, denies his liability to make such deduction. That is not the case herein. The assesses, in the present case, is denying the very liability to deduct tax. Hence, we answer question No. 1 in the affirmative and against the Revenue. Questions Nos. 2 and 3 : 8. Both these questions are interlinked and, therefore, are taken up together. 9. The agreement between the assesses and its foreign collaborator was concluded on February 15, 1989. It is only, thereafter, at the time of credit of any income to the account of the payee or at the time of payment thereof, that the liability to deduct Income Tax at source would arise on the part of the assesses. The liability under Section 195 of the Act would begin to operate only with effect from the date when the collaboration agreement was concluded and not earlier. This is so because the foreign collaborator would get a right to enforce his right to receive payment only on conclusion of the collaboration agreement. Therefore, the determination made by the Revenue under Section 201(1) for the two assessment years, i.e., 1987-88 and 1988-89, is wrong as, by then, the assesses had no liability under Section 195 of the Act to pay any money to its collaborator. The mere fact that the assesses was crediting a certain amount to the credit of the suspense account would not alter this situation in any way. For the assessment year 1989-90, the assesses had deducted 20 per cent, tax at source and remitted the same to the Revenue. The Revenue contends that it ought to have been 30 per cent. But, we are not concerned with this aspect of the matter in the present appeal. 10. In the result, we answer questions Nos. 2 and 3 in the affirmative and against the Revenue.