JUDGMENT : Ramesh Ranganathan, J. 1. This appeal, under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, is preferred by the Revenue against the order passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal in ITA No. 2293/Del/2012 dated 25.9.2013 for the Assessment Year 2006-07. 2. Facts, to the limited extent necessary, are that the assessee, a company incorporated under the law of Mauritius, filed its return, showing NIL income, on 27.11.2006 for the Assessment Year 2006-07. It was their case that, since they were incorporated under the law of Mauritius and were a resident of Mauritius, they were eligible to claim the benefit of the Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement between India and Mauritius. They also claimed that the services rendered by them, in connection with prospecting or extraction or production of mineral oil in India, was, in view of the provisions of the Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement and in the absence of a Permanent Establishment in India, not liable to tax in India. 3. The Assessing Officer, however, rejected their claim, and levied tax. He also rejected their claim that, alternatively, tax should be levied under Section 44-BB of the Income Tax Act. He, thereafter, estimated the profits of the assessee at 25 per cent of the total revenue earned of Rs. 50,01,62,027/-; and, accordingly, brought the income of Rs. 12,50,40,507/- to tax under the Act. 4. Besides levying tax on the assessee, interest under Section 234B of the Act of Rs. 1,72,56,327/- was also imposed on the assessee. 5. Aggrieved thereby, the assessee carried the matter in appeal to the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) who, in his order under Section 250(6) of the Income Tax Act dated 1.3.2012, upheld the order of the Assessing Officer in assessing the income of the assessee on estimated profits of 25 per cent of the total revenues. He, however, followed the decision of a Full Bench of this Court in Director of Income-Tax v. Maersk Co. Ltd. (334 ITR 79), and deleted interest levied by the assessing authority under Section 234B of the Act. He, however, followed the decision of a Full Bench of this Court in Director of Income-Tax v. Maersk Co. Ltd. (334 ITR 79), and deleted interest levied by the assessing authority under Section 234B of the Act. Aggrieved by the order passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), to the extent he had deleted interest levied by the Assessing Officer under Section 234B of the Act, the Revenue carried the matter in appeal to the Tribunal which resulted in the order in ITA No. 2293/Del/2012 dated 25.9.2013 being passed, which is the subject matter of the present appeal. 6. The assessee also preferred an appeal, in ITA No. 2354/Del/2012, to the Tribunal, against the order passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), affirming the order of the Assessing Officer whereby the profits of the assessee were estimated at 25 per cent of the total revenues. 7. While both these appeals ought to have been heard together, the Tribunal decided these appeals separately. 8. In so far as the order under appeal is concerned, the Tribunal extracted the Head Note of the Full Bench judgment of this Court in Director of Income-Tax v. Maersk Co. Ltd. (334 ITR 79), and thereafter observed that the departmental appeal was liable to be dismissed following the decision of the jurisdictional High Court. The Head Note, as extracted in the order under appeal, reads as under: “Looking into the scheme of Chapter XVII of the Income-Tax Act, 1961 it is clear that the provisions relating to payment of tax and those relating to payment of interest operate in two different areas. From a combined reading of section 190, 191, 198, 200, 201, 203 and 204 of the Act, it is clear that as soon as tax is deducted at source by the person responsible to make the payment, the liability of the assessee to pay the tax gets discharged. If the tax is not deducted, it is payable by the assessee directly as provided under section 191 of the Act. Further, the liability to pay interest under section 201(1A) is on the person who fails to deduct the tax at source; it is absolute and is upon the person responsible for deducting tax at source till the date it was actually paid. Further, the liability to pay interest under section 201(1A) is on the person who fails to deduct the tax at source; it is absolute and is upon the person responsible for deducting tax at source till the date it was actually paid. The liability to pay interest under section 234B is on the person who fails to pay advance tax under section 208 of the Act and/on under section 210 of the Act. Where the assessee's income is chargeable under the head “Salaries”, the person responsible for paying the income chargeable under the head “Salaries” shall at the time of paying, deduct income-tax source and failure on his part entails an obligation to pay interest under section 201(1A) of the Act in order to compensate to loss incurred too the Revenue. Upon failure on the part of the employer to deduct tax at source, the assessee only becomes liable to pay the tax directly under section 191 of the Act and does not become liable to pay interest under section 234B of the Act.” 9. While it is, no doubt, true that a reference was made in the said Full Bench judgment, to Section 234B of the Income Tax Act, the question which arose for consideration therein was regarding levy of interest on non-deduction/short deduction of tax at source. The Full Bench had held that, if tax is not deducted at source by the employer, the employee is liable to pay tax, but liability of interest cannot be fixed on the employee since it is the employer who is obligated to deduct tax at source; where the assessee's income is chargeable, under the head “Salaries”, the person responsible, for paying the income chargeable under the head “Salaries”, shall, at the time of paying, deduct income tax at source; and failure, on his part, entails an obligation to pay interest for the belated payment of tax. 10. The law declared in Director of Income-Tax v. Maersk Co. Ltd. (334 ITR 79) has no application to the facts of the present case wherein the assessee was levied interest under Section 234B of the Income Tax Act on the ground that they had failed to pay advance tax in terms of Sections 208 and 210 of the said Act. The judgment in Maersk Co. Ltd. (334 ITR 79) has no application to the facts of the present case wherein the assessee was levied interest under Section 234B of the Income Tax Act on the ground that they had failed to pay advance tax in terms of Sections 208 and 210 of the said Act. The judgment in Maersk Co. Ltd., which relates to deduction of tax at source, on income chargeable under the head “Salaries”, at the time of making payment of the salary to the employee, has no application to the facts of the present case which relates to levy of interest on an assessee for non-payment of advance tax. In the case on hand, the Tribunal erred in following the law declared by the Full Bench of this Court in Maersk Co. Ltd., and in dismissing the appeal preferred by the Revenue. The order under appeal must, therefore, be set aside on this short ground. 11. Sri Chetan Joshi, learned Counsel for the respondent-assessee, would however submit that the assessee had preferred an appeal against the order passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) in ITA No. 2354/Del/2012, which was allowed by the Tribunal by its order dated 22.10.2018; both the orders passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), and the Assessing Officer, were set aside holding that the assessee did not have a Permanent Establishment in India; and, since the very levy of tax has been set aside, the question of paying interest for non-payment of advance tax, when there is no tax liability at all, would not arise. 12. We find considerable force in this submission of the learned Counsel for the respondent-assessee. Since the order passed by the Assessing Officer levying tax, as affirmed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), has itself been set aside, and the assessee has been held not liable to pay tax on its income from business or profession, the question of payment of interest, for non-payment of advance tax, would not arise. 13. Since the order passed by the Assessing Officer levying tax, as affirmed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), has itself been set aside, and the assessee has been held not liable to pay tax on its income from business or profession, the question of payment of interest, for non-payment of advance tax, would not arise. 13. As long as the order passed by the Tribunal in ITA No. 2354/Del/2012 dated 22.10.2018 continues to remain in force, the order now passed by us in ITA No. 23 of 2014, setting aside the order passed by the Tribunal in ITA No. 2293/Del/2012 dated 25.9.2013, would not result in the assessee being called upon to pay interest, under Section 234B of the Act, since their very liability to pay tax has been set aside by the Tribunal. 14. Sri H.M. Bhatia, learned Senior Standing Counsel appearing for the appellant, would submit that, against the order passed by the Tribunal in ITA No. 2354/Del/2012 dated 22.10.2018, the Revenue has preferred Income Tax Appeal No. 7 of 2019 before this Court. Suffice it, therefore, to make it clear that the liability of the assessee, to pay interest under Section 234B of the Act, would be subject to the result of Income Tax Appeal No. 7 of 2019 pending on the file of this Court. 15. The Income Tax Appeal is, accordingly, disposed of. No costs.