M/s. Volvo Group India Private Limited (Earlier known as Volvo India Private Limited), Bengaluru V. Income Tax Officer (OSD) Large Tax Payers Unit, Bangalore

ITA 498/BANG/2020

• Counselvise Citation: [2022] 106 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 3519 (ITAT-BANGALORE)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 2 month(s) 10 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 24-08-2022
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: C
• Assessment Year: 2014-2015
• Appeal Filed On: 14-06-2020
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Assessee Lawyers: NEERAJ K. JAIN; MAKING SUOMOTU
• Keywords: Recovery proceedings; Opportunity of being heard; Non-deduction of tax; TDS
• Section: 40A(3); 40(a)(ia); 194C; 201(1); 195; 201; 191; 194J; 194A; 13; 22

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C” BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI GEORGE GEORGE K., JUDICIAL MEMBER AND Ms. PADMAVATHY S, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No.498/Bang/2020 Assessment year : 2014-15 M/s. Volvo Group India Pvt. Ltd. [earlier known as Volvo India Pvt. Ltd.], Yalachahally Village, Tavareke Post, Hoskote Taluk, Bengaluru – 561 122. PAN: AAACV 6747N Vs. The Income Tax Officer (OSD), LTU, Bengaluru. APPELLANT RESPONDENT Appellant by : Shri Neeraj K. Jain, Advocate Respondent by : Shri Bijoy Kumar Panda, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru. Date of hearing : 25.08.2022 Date of Pronouncement : 25.08.2022 O R D E R Per Padmavathy S., Accountant Member This appeal is against the order of the CIT(Appeals), Bengaluru- 14, dated 7.2.2020 for the assessment year 2014-15 on the following grounds:- 1. “That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)] erred in not holding that the impugned order passed by the assessing officer under sections ITA No.498/Bang/2020 Page 2 of 31 201(1) and 201(1A) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ("the Act") was illegal, beyond jurisdiction and bad in law. 2. That the CIT(A) erred on facts and in law in confirming the order passed by the assessing officer under sections 201(1) and 201(1A) treating the appellant as `assessee-in-default' for not deducting tax at source under section 194C, 1941 and 194J of the Act from the year end provisions made by the appellant for payments aggregating to a sum of Rs. 2,63,94,145 and levying interest of Rs. 66,28,329. 3. That the CIT(A) erred on facts and in law in not appreciating that obligation to deduct tax at source under the provisions of Chapter XVII-B of the Act arises only if - (i) liability recognized by the payer is credited to the account of an identified payee, and (ii) the payment made constitutes income in the hands of such payee. 4. That the CIT(A) erred on facts and in law in holding that the appellant was required to deduct tax at source without appreciating that the appellant merely created a provision for estimated expenses while closing the books of accounts for the relevant year and in absence of a claim made or invoices received from the vendor, liability to make payment did not accrued on the appellant and therefore tax was not required to be deducted from such estimated year end provisions. 5. That the CIT(A) erred on facts and in law in not appreciating that the appellant was not aware of the exact amount of expense or the name/ details of payees since invoices determining actual liability were received from the parties in the succeeding financial year. 6. That the CIT(A) erred on facts and in law in not following the binding decision of the Hon'ble Karnataka High Court in the case of Karnataka Power Transmission Corporation Ltd vs DCIT: 383 ITR 59, wherein it was held that there is no obligation on the assessee to deduct tax at source on payment in respect of which no income accrued to the payees. 7. That the CIT(A) erred on facts and in law in not appreciating that tax was duly deducted and deposited at source in subsequent year(s) at the time of crediting the amount or making payments to the parties, reason wherefor, the appellant cannot, in any case, be treated to be in default under section 201 of the Act. 8. That the CIT(A) erred on facts and in law in not appreciating that the word 'credit' in section 194C, 194J, 1941 and other sections refers to constructive credit and when assessee disallows voluntarily ITA No.498/Bang/2020 Page 3 of 31 certain items gets effaced ab initio and consequently the appellant would not have had any obligation to deduct tax at source on those items under various sections of the Act. 9. Without prejudice, the CIT(A) erred on facts and in law in not appreciating that once tax is paid by the appellant by making suo-motu disallowance under section 40(a)(ia), then, the same cannot be subject to the TDS provisions again so as to demand tax under the provisions of section 201 and also levy interest under section 201(1A), rendering provisions of section 40(a)(ia) of the Act otiose. 10. Without prejudice, the CIT(A) failed to appreciate that tax was not required to be deducted on payments aggregating to Rs.1,33,59,888, pertaining to (a) purchase of materials; (b) provision made qua parties having Nil withholding certificates; and (c) provision for transport vendors on whom TDS provisions does not apply in terms of section 194C(6) of the Act. 11. That the CIT(A) erred on facts and in law in confirming the levy of interest of Rs.66,28,329 under section 201(1A) of the Act, in respect of tax allegedly deductible but not deducted and delayed remittance of tax by the appellant in respect of the aforesaid year end provisions. 12. The appellant craves leave to add, alter, amend, or vary the above grounds of appeal at or before the time of hearing.” 2. The assessee is a company engaged in the business of manufacture and sale of contractors, trailers, bus chasis, road machinery and construction equipments. For the AY 2014-15 the assessee created provision for expenses headwise on estimated basis for the purpose of closing the books of account for the year end. The break-up of the provision created is as follows:- Contractors - 194C - Rs. 9,73,15,961 Rent - 194I - Rs. 2,02,94,286 Professional charges 194J - Rs.31,48,42,587 Commission - 194H - Rs. 2,40,16,353 Payments to non-residents – 195 Rs. 36,83,938 ITA No.498/Bang/2020 Page 4 of 31 3. The aforesaid sum was duly disallowed by the assessee u/s.40(a)(ia) in the return of income filed for AY 2014-15. The ITO, TDS, LTU [AO] issued a notice for proceedings u/s. 201(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 [the Act] calling for various details with regard to the disallowance made by the assessee u/s. 40(a)(ia) in the return. The assessee duly furnished the details called and submitted that the amount disallowed u/s. 40(a)(ia) represents provision for services received during the month only for the purpose of accounts closing as of 31.3.2014. The assessee submitted that the tax is not deducted on these provisions made on estimate basis as they cannot be accurately quantified and the parties were not identifiable. The assessee also submitted that the provisions are reversed in the subsequent month when invoices are received and accounted with actual liability. The assessee further submitted that the assessee deducted tax at applicable rate at the time of accounting actual invoices and remitted to the same Government account. The AO did not accept the submissions of the assessee and proceeded to treat the assessee as ‘an assessee in default’ u/s. 201(1) and also levied interest u/s. 201(1A) of the Act as follows:- Section Amount of disallowance u/s 40 (a)(ia) Tax to be deducted Tax deducted Demand u/s 201(1) Interest u/s 201(1A ) 194C 9,73,15,961 19,46,319 19,09,028 37,291 8,950 1941 2,02,94,286 20,29,429 19,91,005 38,424 9,222 194J 31,48,42,587 3,14,84,259 51,65,829 2,63,18,430 63,16,423 194H 2,40,16,353 24,01,635 24,01,635 Nil - 195 36,83,938 3,68,394 4,32,448 Nil - 46,01,53,125 3,82,30,036 1,18,99,945 2,63,94,145 63,39,545 ITA No.498/Bang/2020 Page 5 of 31 4. Aggrieved, the assessee preferred appeal before the CIT(Appeals) and explained the accounting procedure followed by the assessee. The assessee reiterated the submissions made before the AO that the provisions are made on estimate basis, though these provisions were identifiable headwise, they were without reference to any particular period and therefore no deduction of tax at source was made on the provisions. The CIT(Appeals) rejected the contentions of the assessee for the following reasons:- (i) The provisions created headwise are disallowed u/s. 40(a)(ia) by the assessee whereby the assessee has categorically admitted that it was liable to deduct tax, but failed to do so. Therefore, assessee’s claim that TDS liability did not exist while making the provisions runs counter to its own actions. (ii) As per the provisions of the I.T. Act, when a provision is created u/s. 194C, 194I, 194H, 194J & 195, even if the sums referred under these provisions are created to any account, whether called “suspense account” or by any other name, then the present liability to pay such sum agreed, shall be deemed to be credited to the account of the payee, thereby TDS shall apply accordingly. (iii) The assessee has made provisions on estimate basis on a pre- existing contract with known parties and identified services and therefore it cannot be said that the assessee could not identify the parties at the time of creating the provision. (iv) The assessee was unable to provide the details of provision created and entries relating to reversal of the same. 5. In view of the above reasons, the CIT(Appeals) concluded that the provision created based on estimated expenditure towards various items to identified payees is liable for tax deduction at source and since the assessee failed to comply with the provisions, the assessee should ITA No.498/Bang/2020 Page 6 of 31 be treated as ‘assessee in default’ u/s. 201(1) of the Act. With regard to levy of interest u/s. 201(1A) of the Act, the CIT(Appeals) relied on the decision of the ITAT Bangalore in the case of IBM India P. Ltd. v. ITO(TDS), LTU [2015] 59 taxmann.com 107. 6. Aggrieved by the order of the CIT(Appeals), the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. 7. The ld. AR submitted before us the break-up of the provision created from the TDS point of view and made submissions as to why tax is not deductible against each line item of the said break-up details the extract of which is as given below - S. No. Particulars Amount Interest u/s 201(1A) Remarks Page No. of PB 1. Provision created for payments where parties are not identifiable 23,92,47,351 57,41,936 In view of para 9.3 of Biocon, since the parties were not identifiable, the provisions of Chapter XVII-B were not applicable and provisions of section 201 cannot be attracted. 63 2. Provision was created but no invoices received from the vendors 1,16,86,311 5,92,659 falls under scenario (c) described in Biocon. Accordingly, since no amount was ultimately found to be payable, there was no requirement to deduct TDS and hence, the provisions of section 201 were not applicable (refer Para 10.3 of Biocon). 68 ITA No.498/Bang/2020 Page 7 of 31 3. Provision created for payments made for purchase of material — TDS not applicable 9,46,447 The aforesaid payments pertain to purchase of certain raw material which were not subject to TDS under the Act. Accordingly, the appellant rightly did not deduct TDS on the said payments and there is no non- compliance to this extent. 69 4. Provision created for parties where certificate for NIL deduction of tax was issued 23,77,374 In respect of the provision created for payment to be made to the said party, no TDS was deductible since a certificate for NIL withholding was issued for the year under consideration. 70-71 5. Provision created for parties covered under section 172 of the Act 17,71,704 No TDS was deductible on provision created for the said amount in view of CBDT Circular dated 723 dated 19.09.1995 wherein it was clarified that since the provisions of section 172 are applicable in such case, the provisions for tax deduction at source contained in section 194C and 195 are not applicable to such companies. 70, 72 6. Provision created for parties covered under section 194C (6) of the Act 90,01,810 Provision aggregating to Rs .90,01,810 had been created in respect of contractors for goods carriages who are covered in the exception from deduction of tax at source provided under sub -section (6) of section 194C of the Act 73-75 7. Provision created for parties to whom payment was made on receipt of Invoice in subsequent year after deduction of TDS 19,51,22,127 2,88,784 There is no dispute raised by the assessing officer with respect to this amount. 64-67 Total 46,01,53,125 8. The ld AR also submitted that the issue is covered by the decision of the Tribunal in assessee’s own case for AYs 2012-13 & 2013-14 in ITA Nos.1195/B/2014 & 474/B/2016 dated 25.3.2022 wherein the coordinate Bench of the Tribunal has dealt with a similar issue and remitted the issue back to the AO for verification of the ITA No.498/Bang/2020 Page 8 of 31 evidence. The ld AR further submitted that in the decision of assessee’s own case, Hon’ble Tribunal has followed the decision of the coordinate bench of the Tribunal in the case of Biocon Ltd. v. DCIT in ITA No.1248/Bang/2014 dated 21.3.2022 wherein the Hon’ble Tribunal has laid down certain principles with regard to applicability of section 201(1) and interest u/s. 201(1A) under various scenarios. 9. The ld. DR submitted that the assessee has itself admitted that it is liable to deduct tax at source and on that basis the assessee has disallowed the impugned provisions for expenses u/s. 40(a)(ia). The ld DR therefore submitted that the assessee cannot now deny the tax deduction liability on the provisions. With regard to interest u/s. 201(1A), the ld. DR relied on the decision in the case of IBM India P. Ltd. (supra). 10. We have considered the rival submissions and perused the material on record. The coordinate Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Biocon Ltd. (supra) has considered identical issue relating to deductibility or otherwise of tax at source on “yearend provisions” and has held as under:- "5. Still aggrieved, the assessee has filed this appeal before us. The assessee’s contentions are that (a) The assessee is not liable to deduct tax at source from the “yearend provisions” (b) The Provision for expenses included the commission expenses payable to non-resident commission agents and they are not liable to tax in India in their hands. Hence the provisions of sec.195 are not applicable. ITA No.498/Bang/2020 Page 9 of 31 6. We heard the parties and perused the record. Before addressing the issues contested before us, we feel it necessary to discuss about the accounting practice relating to making yearend provisions, its impact on profits and the legal effects. The accounts of a business concern can follow either “cash system of accounting” or “mercantile system of accounting”. Under mercantile system of accounting, “revenue cost matching principle” is followed, i.e., all the expenses incurred to earn the corresponding revenue should be accounted for. The accounting principle of “Prudence” also requires for accounting for all known expenses and losses at the time of finalising accounts at the year end. Accordingly, the assessee’s, who are following mercantile system of accounting are required to account for all known expenses and losses, even if the bills/invoices have not been received. This is done by making provision for various expenses at the year end. It will ensure that the financial statements reflect true profits of the fiscal period. Accounting Standard–29 issued by the Institute of Chartered Accountants of India (ICAI) titled as “Provisions, Contingent Liabilities and Contingent Assets” deals with this aspect. As per AS- 29, “A Provision is a liability which can be measured only by using a substantial degree of estimation”. It further states as under:- “A Provision should be recognised when:- (a) an enterprise has a present obligation as a result of past event. (b) it is probable that an outflow of resources embodying economic benefits will be required to settle the obligation; and (c) a reliable estimate can be made of the amount of the obligation.” Hence, while finalising the accounts as at the year end, it is a usual accounting practice to ascertain the obligations that have arisen as a result of past events, which may involve probable cash outflow. All those obligations are recognised as expenses and provided for. Making a provision will be an easy task, if the assessee is aware of the quantum of liability. For example, audit fee might have been fixed in the AGM and hence it is easy to provide for the same as at the year end. On the contrary, if the assessee has received services of an advocate and he has not sent his bill by the year end, then the assessee shall be constrained to make an estimate of the amount that may be charged by an advocate and provide for it in the books of account as at the year end. ITA No.498/Bang/2020 Page 10 of 31 6.1 The accounting practice followed in this regard is that the Concerned expenses account shall be debited and “Provision for expenses” account shall be credited. The “book rule” of accounting practice is to debit ‘Provision for Expenses’ account with the payment made in the succeeding year. Since the expenses are provided for on estimated basis, four possible situations shall arise in the succeeding year, when payment is made. We explain the same by way of illustrations:- Let us assume that provision for expenses is made for Rs.1000/- towards a particular expense as on 31.3.2012 and the above said amount was determined on estimated basis. (a) Situation I:- In the subsequent year, the assessee receives bill for Rs.1000/-. Accordingly, when the payment is made “Provision for expenses” account shall be debited with Rs.1000/-. In this situation, the Provision for expenses a/c will show NIL balance after the payment. There will not be any impact on the Profit and Loss account of the succeeding year. (b) Situation II:- In the subsequent year, the assessee receives bill for Rs.1,200/-, meaning thereby, the provision created was short by Rs.200/-. When the payment is made, the Provision for expenses account shall be debited with Rs.1000/- and the concerned expenses account shall be debited with remaining amount ofRs.200/-. In this situation also, the Provision for expenses a/c will show NIL balance after the payment. There will be impact on the Profit and Loss account of the succeeding year by way of increase in expenses by Rs.200/-. (c) Situation III:- In the subsequent year, the assessee receives bill for Rs.750/- only, meaning thereby, the provision created was in excess by Rs.250/-. When the payment is made, the Provision for expenses account shall be debited with Rs.750/-, which will leave a credit balance of Rs.250/- in the Provision for Expenses account. This remaining credit balance will be transferred to the Profit and Loss account. Accordingly, the Provision for expenses account will show NIL balance and there will be an impact on the Profit and Loss account of the succeeding year by way of income of Rs.250/-. (d) Situation IV:- The assessee finds that it is not liable to pay the provision amount. Accordingly, the entire amount of Rs.1000/- ITA No.498/Bang/2020 Page 11 of 31 outstanding to the credit of Provision for expenses account shall be transferred to the Profit and Loss account. Accordingly, the Provision for expenses a/c will show NIL balance and there will be an impact on the Profit and Loss account of the succeeding year by way of income of Rs.1000/-. Thus, the effect of making provision in a year is that the “Profit and Loss account” of the year in which the said provision is made will absorb the relevant expenses to the extent so provided for, i.e., those expenses will not get shifted to the next year when the payment is actually made. The profit and loss account of succeeding year will not be affected by the amount of provision made, if the actual payment made is equal to or in excess of the provision amount. However, if there is no requirement of making any payment or if the payment made is less than the amount provided for, then the Profit and Loss account of the succeeding year shall be affected to the extent of the amount transferred from “Provision for expenses a/c” to the credit of Profit and loss account. 6.2 However, in the present days, the above said “book rule” practice is not followed. The modern days accounting practice is to reverse the provision for expenses so created as at the yearend immediately on the first day of succeeding year. For example, yearend provisions created as on 31.3.2012 shall be reversed on 01- 04-2012. Thereafter the expenses shall be booked as and when the invoice is accounted/payment is made in the succeeding year. This modern days practice is followed only for convenient sake only. It can be noticed that the impact on the ‘profit and loss’ of the year in which provision for expenses was created and also on the ‘profit and loss’ of the succeeding year would be the same as discussed in the preceding paragraph, if the actual payment is made before the closure of the succeeding year. There will be a difficulty/risk in this modern days practice if the actual payment is not made before the closure of accounting year of the succeeding year against an acknowledged liability. In that kind of situation, the assessee should provide for the same again as at the year end of the succeeding year, which may sometimes lead to tax complications. 6.3 An argument was advanced that there will be no liability to deduct tax at source on the yearend provisions made as on 31.3.2012, since the same is reversed on 01.04.2012. From the discussions made in the preceding paragraphs with regard to the impact of the ITA No.498/Bang/2020 Page 12 of 31 accounting entries relating to Provision for expenses, it would be clear that this argument is fallacious and devoid of merits. We also noticed that, it is only for the sake of convenience, the modern days practice of reversing the yearend “Provision for expenses” as at the beginning of succeeding year is followed. We have also seen that the effect/impact on the Net profit/loss of the preceding year in which provision was initially created or the effect/impact on net profit/loss of succeeding year would remain the same under “book rule” method of accounting practice and modern days accounting practice. The net result of making provision for expenses is that the expenses pertaining to a particular year shall be claimed in that year only even in the absence of bills/invoices received from the vendors/service providers. 7. We shall now advert to the Income tax Act. Chapter VII of the Act deals with provisions relating to tax deduction at source. The contention of the assessee is that the “yearend provisions” are made on estimated basis and further it is credited to “Provision for expenses” account and not to the credit of vendors/service providers’ account. Accordingly, it was contended that the TDS provisions will not apply to yearend provisions. 7.1 We noticed earlier that the Ld CIT(A) has referred to the provisions of Sub-sec. (2) of sec. 194C, Explanation (ii) to sec. 194I, Explanation (c) to Sec. 194J, Explanation (iv) to Sec. 194H and Explanation 1 to sec. 195, which states that even if the sums referred to under these provisions are credited to any account, whether called ‘Suspense Account’ or by any other name, in the books of account of the person liable to pay such income, such crediting shall be deemed to be credit of such account to the account of the payee and the provisions of TDS shall apply accordingly. For the sake of convenience, we extract below provisions of sec.194C(2):- “Where any sum referred to in sub-section (1) is credited to any account whether called “Suspense account” or by any other name, in the books of account of the person liable to pay such income, such crediting shall be deemed to be credit of such income to the account of the payee and the provisions of this section shall apply accordingly.” Similar clause is available in all other provisions requiring deduction of tax at source. ITA No.498/Bang/2020 Page 13 of 31 7.2 The question as to whether the above said clause available in various TDS provisions shall apply even to “Provision for expenses” created at the yearend was examined by the co-ordinate bench in the case of IBM India Private Ltd vs. The ITO (TDS) (ITA Nos. 749 to 752/Bang/2012 dated 14.05.2015) and the said question was decided as under:- “29. Sec. 194C applies when payment is made to contractor. The point of time at which tax had to be deducted at source is at the time of credit to the Account of contractor or payment in cash or cheque, whoever is earlier. Sub-section (2) of Sec. 194-C lays down that where any sum referred to in sub-section (1) is credited to any account, whether called “Suspense account” or by any other name, in the books of account of the person liable to pay such income, such crediting shall be deemed to be credit of such income to the account of the payee and the provisions of this section shall apply accordingly. Similar provision such as Sec. 194(2) exists in Sec. 194H Explanation (ii) of the Act which applies when the payment made is in the nature of commission or brokerage, in sec. 194J Explanation(c) when payment made is Fees for Technical Service and Sec. 195 Expln.-1 when payment is made to non-resident. The reason for introduction of provisions such as Sec. 194(2) of the Act has been explained in CBDT circular No.550 dated 1.1.1990 as follows:- “26.3 Under the existing provisions of section 193 of the Income-tax Act, tax has to be deducted at source by the person responsible for making any payment in the nature of interest on securities at the time of payment. The liability to deduct tax at source was being postponed by making a provision for such payment. In order to prevent the postponement of liability to deduct tax and payment to the credit of the Central Government, the Finance Act has provided that tax will be deducted at source either at the time of credit to the account of the payee or at the time of payment thereof, whichever is earlier. For this purpose, credit to any suspense account or any other account, by whatever name called, shall be deemed to be a credit of such income to the account of the payee.” 30. It is thus clear from the statutory provisions that the liability to tax at source exists when the amount in question is credited to a ‘suspense Account’ or any other account by whatever name called, which will also include “Provision” created in the books of accounts. Therefore it is not possible for the Assessee to argue that there was no ITA No.498/Bang/2020 Page 14 of 31 accrual of expenditure in accordance with the mercantile system of account and therefore the TDS obligations do not get triggered.” 7.3 We notice that the Delhi bench of Tribunal has also considered the question of applicability of TDS provisions on yearend provisions in the case of Interglobe Aviation Ltd vs.ACIT (ITA No.5347/Del/2012 dated 07-01-2020), wherein it was held as under:- “19. We have carefully considered the rival contentions and perused the orders of the lower authorities. Assessee has made provision for Airport expenses of Rs 32314535/, Airport Handling expenses Rs. 14115000/-, Crew Accommodation expense Rs 694000/-, IT Communication charges Rs 7021580/- and provision for other expenses Rs 74335080/-. Admittedly assessee has not deducted tax and source on the above sum stating that it is yearend provision and the payees are not identified. It is not the case of the assessee that these are we are not ascertained liabilities. According to the provisions of the income tax act the tax is required to be deducted as and when assessee becomes responsible for payment of above sum to other parties. The claim of the assessee is that it is maintaining its books of account on accrual basis of accounting and therefore the amount is required to be provided for. When the expenditure incurred by the assessee, the corresponding liability definitely arises for payment of such expenditure. The amount of expenditure incurred can be determined only if, there is a recipient identified of the sum, there is a methodology available for working out the amount payable by the assessee to the recipient, there is a corresponding liability arising out of the existing contract or customs by the assessee with the recipient. If generally these ingredients are not satisfied assessee cannot be said to have incurred the expenditure. In absence of one of one of these criteria, if provision is made, it is not an ascertained liability but an unascertained liability, which does not satisfied the concept of accrual of expenditure. There may be reasons for receiving the bills by the service providers after certain time lag but that does not absolve the assessee from the liability of deduction of tax at source. In the present case the provision is made under the specified head, provision is also made to on certain basis thereby ascertaining the amount. It is not the case of the assessee that it has made an ad hoc provision. Thus it cannot be said that the payee is not identified. Therefore, according to us, the tax is required to be deducted on the year-end provisions made ITA No.498/Bang/2020 Page 15 of 31 by the assessee which are ascertained liabilities. No doubt, the learned CIT(A) has given the benefit of the assessee if tax is deducted by the assessee subsequently. Therefore we do not find any infirmity in the order of the learned CIT(A) in holding that assessee has failed to deducted tax at source on year-end provisions. Thus the order of the learned CIT(A) is upheld to that extent.” 7.4 Following the above said decisions of the co-ordinate benches, we hold that the TDS provisions are triggered for the amount credited to “Provision for expenses account” also, in view of specific provisions (extracted above) available in all TDS sections. Accordingly, the assessee is liable to deduct tax at source from the yearend provision for expenses. 8. One more contention raised by Ld A.R is that the assessee has voluntarily disallowed the amount of yearend provision u/s 40(a)(i)/40(a)(ia) of the Act and hence there is no requirement to raise any demand u/s 201(1)/201(1A) of the Act, i.e., disallowance made u/s 40(a)(i)/40(a)(ia) would exonerate the assessee from the liability u/s 201 of the Act. In this regard, he placed his reliance on the decision rendered by co-ordinate bench in the case of Robert Bosch Engineering and Business Solutions P Ltd (ITA Nos.1689 & 1690/Bang/2017 dated 31.1.2022). 8.1 We notice that the very same contention was urged before Cochin bench of Tribunal in the case of Agreenco Fibre Foam (P) Ltd vs. The ITO (TDS)(ITA No.165/Coch/2012 dated 16 th August 2013) and it was rejected with the following observations:- “5.2 The liability to deduct tax at source on the interest payments is prescribed u/s 194 A of the Act. Sub-section (1) of sec. 194A reads as under:- 194A. (1) Any person, not being an individual or a Hindu Undivided family, who is responsible for paying to a resident any income by way of interest other than income by way of interest on securities, shall, at the time of credit of such income to the account of payee or at the time of payment thereof in cash or by issue of a cheque or draft or by any other mode, whichever is earlier, deduct income tax thereon at the rates in force." ITA No.498/Bang/2020 Page 16 of 31 Explanation:- For the purposes of this section, where any income by way of interest as aforesaid is credited to any account, whether called "Interest payable account" or "Suspense account" or by any other name, in the books of account of the person liable to pay such income, such crediting shall be deemed to be credit of such income to the account of payee and the provisions of this section shall apply accordingly." A plain reading of above provision clearly shows that the person responsible to pay the interest is liable to deduct tax at source at the time of credit or payment, whichever is earlier. It is pertinent to note that the section uses the term "any income by way of interest". The interest payment may constitute expenditure in the hands of the person making the payment, while it may constitute income in the hands of the payee/recipient. Since the section uses the term "any income by way of interest", in our view, it should be viewed from the angle of the recipient/payee and not from the angle of the person making the payment. Accordingly, the accounting/tax treatment given by the payer in respect of interest paid by him may not be relevant at all for the purposes of sec. 194A of the Act. So long as the interest amount constitutes "income" in the hands of recipient, the payer shall be liable to deduct tax at source on the interest amount so paid. Accordingly, even if the payer has disallowed the expenditure u/s 40(a)(ia) of the Act or did not claim the same as expenditure at all, he shall still be liable to deduct tax at source u/s 194A of the Act on the interest amount so paid, if the said payment is liable for tax deduction at source. We notice that the Mumbai bench of Tribunal, in the case of Pfizer Ltd (supra) did not consider the express provisions contained in sec. 194A of the Act. Further we notice that the provisions of sec. 40(a)(ia) does not override the provisions of sec. 201 of the Act. We notice that provisions of sec. 40(a)(ia) do not provide for absolute disallowance as in the case of say, sec. 40A(3) of the Act. The amount disallowed u/s 40(a)(ia) in one year can be claimed as deduction in the year in which the TDS provisions are complied with. Thus, in our view, the provisions of sec. 40(a)(ia) provide only for deferment of the allowance and it does not provide for absolute disallowance. The objective of sec. 40(a)(ia) appears to be to compel the assessee to deduct tax at source in order to claim the relevant expenditure as deduction.” ITA No.498/Bang/2020 Page 17 of 31 8.2 The co-ordinate Bangalore bench of Tribunal has also examined similar argument raised before it in the case of IBM India Private Ltd (ITA Nos.749 to 752/Bang/2012 dated 14.05.2015) and it was rejected with the following observations:- “27. We have carefully considered rival submissions. Provisions of Sec.40 of the Act start with a non-obstante clause and provides that, “Notwithstanding anything to the contrary in sections 30 to 38, the following amounts shall not be deducted in computing the income chargeable under the head “Profits and gains of business or profession.” Sec.40(a)(i) and 40(a)(ia) of the Act lists of certain items of expenditure and categories payees as “Residents” “Non Residents”. In respect of the items of such expenditure there if there is an obligation to deduct tax at source under Chapter XVII-B and such tax has not been deducted or after deduction, has not been paid during the previous year, then the expenditure cannot be claimed as a deduction. Sec. 200(1) appears in Chapter XVII-B of the Act and it provides that any person deducting any sum in accordance with the foregoing provisions of this Chapter i.e., Chapter-XVII-B shall pay within the prescribed time, the sum so deducted to the credit of the Central Government or as the Board directs. Sec.201(1) of the Act is triggered when if any such person referred to in section 200 does not deduct the whole or any part of the tax 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 assessee in default in respect of the tax. The contention of the learned DR that the assessee having admitted its default u/s 40(a)(i) & 40(a)(ia) of the Act, cannot in proceedings u/s 201(1) of the Act, be heard to say that there was no default under Chapter XVII-B of the Act is therefore correct. The disability u/s 40(a)(i) & 40(a)(ia) of the Act and the liability u/s 201(1) of the Act cannot be different and they arise out of the same default. Once there is disallowance u/s 40(a)(i) & 40(a)(ia) of the Act, it is not possible to argue that there was no liability under Chapter XVII-B of the Act and therefore the provisions of Sec.201(1) of the Act will not be attracted. 8.3 It can be noticed that the co-ordinate benches have, in the case of Agreenco Fibre Foam (P) Ltd (supra) and also in the case of IBM India P Ltd (supra), expressed the view that the disallowance u/s 40(a)(i) and 40(a)(ia) and the demand raised u/s 201 are two different consequences. In this connection, we may advert to various provisions ITA No.498/Bang/2020 Page 18 of 31 of the Act. We may notice that the Income tax Act provides for different types of consequences for the failure to deduct tax at source or failure to remit the tax so deducted either in full or in part. The consequences provided under the Act are (a)disallowance of expenses should be made u/s 40(a)(i)/40(a)(ia); (b) assessee shall be deemed to be an assessee in default and hence the demand u/s 201(1)/201(1A) could be raised upon the assessee. (b)penalty can be levied u/s 271C/271CA and (c)prosecution can be launched /s 276B of the Act. It is pertinent to note that each of the consequences mentioned above are independent of each other. However, in case of disallowance of expenses to be made u/s 40(a)(ia) (w.e.f AY 2013-14) and u/s 40(a)(i) (w.e.f 2020-21), the proviso inserted in those sections gives a relief, i.e., if the assessee is “not deemed to be an assessee in default u/s 201”, then there is no requirement of making any disallowance u/s 40(a)(ia)/40(a)(i). The corollary is that if the assessee is deemed to be an assessee in default, the above said relief given under the proviso to sec.40(a)(i)/40(a)(ia) shall apply. Thus the proviso given under sec.40(a)(i)/40(a)(ia) itself makes it very clear that liability u/s 201 is independent of the above said disallowances. 8.4 Our view that each of the consequences is independent of each other is also supported by the Explanation given under Sec. 191, which reads as under:- Explanation.—For the removal of doubts, it is hereby declared that if any person including the principal officer of a company,— (a) who is required to deduct any sum in accordance with the provisions of this Act; or (b) referred to in sub-section (1A) of section 192, being an employer, does not deduct, or after so deducting fails to pay, or does not pay, the whole or any part of the tax, as required by or under this Act, and where the assessee has also failed to pay such tax directly, then, such person shall, without prejudice to any other consequences which he may incur, be deemed to be an assessee in default within the meaning of sub-section (1) of section 201, in respect of such tax. In view of the above said explanation given under sec.191 of the Act, the provisions of sec.201 are triggered when the assessee is “deemed ITA No.498/Bang/2020 Page 19 of 31 to be an assessee in default”. Further this explanation makes it very clear that this liability is “without prejudice to any other consequences which he may incur”. The assessee can escape from the disallowance to be made u/s 40(a)(i)/40(a)(ia), if he is not treated as an “assessee in default”. In our considered view, the converse is not true, i.e., if the assessee makes disallowance u/s 40(a)(i)/40(a)(ia), he will not be exonerated from the liability u/s 201 of the Act. 8.5 Another pertinent point to be noted is that the disallowance required to be made u/s 40(a)(i)/40(a)(ia); penalty to be levied u/s 271C/271CA are the direct liabilities, i.e., liabilities which are directly imposed upon the assessee due to his failure. On the contrary, the demand raised u/s 201(1)/201(1A) is vicarious liability imposed upon an assessee. The tax is deducted at source from the amount payable to the payee, i.e., it is not paid in discharge of assessee’s own liability. The role of an assessee is that of “Pipe line” role, i.e., TDS is deducted from the amount payable to a vendor and remitted to the credit of the Government on behalf of the vendor. For example, if an assessee is liable to pay interest amount of Rs.10,000/- to a person named Mr. A and the said payment is liable for tax deduction at source @ 10%, then the assessee shall pay Rs.9000/- to Mr.A and deposit Rs.1000/- to the credit of Government as TDS on behalf of Mr.A. Thus the TDS amount is actually a form of recovery of tax from the payee Mr.A and it belongs to him only. Hence Mr.A is entitled to claim set off of the TDS amount of Rs.1000/- against the tax payable by him. If there is failure on the part of an assessee to deduct tax at source, the provisions of sec.191 introduces a “deeming fiction” as per which the said assessee is deemed to be an assessee in default. Accordingly, the TDS amount could be recovered from the assessee, even if he has not yet paid the amount or fully paid the amount to the payee, i.e., the assessee is made liable for the tax belonging to the payee. In the above said example, the assessee would be liable to pay Rs.1000/- as per the provisions of sec.201(1) over and above the amount of Rs.10000/- payable/paid to Mr.A. Hence it is called vicarious liability. The concept of vicarious liability has been well explained by Mumbai bench of Tribunal in the case of Industrial Development Bank of India vs. ITO (2007)(107 ITD 45), which are going to discuss infra. 8.6 In view of the foregoing discussions on legal provisions, following the decisions rendered by the co-ordinate benches of Tribunal in the case of IBM India Pvt Ltd (supra) and Agreenco Fibre ITA No.498/Bang/2020 Page 20 of 31 foam P Ltd (supra), we hold that the disallowance made u/s 40(a)(i)/40(a)(ia) will not absolve the assessee from the liability u/s 201 of the Act, when an assessee is deemed to be an assessee in default. 9 The Ld A.R submitted that the assessee has deducted tax at source when the payments are actually made in the succeeding year. The co-ordinate bench in the case of IBM India P Ltd (supra) has held that the demand raised u/s 201(1) is liable to be cancelled, if the assessee has deducted tax at source at the time of accounting the invoices/bills or at the time of making payment in the succeeding year. It was further held that the assessee would be liable to pay interest u/s 201(1A) of the Act, in view of the delay in deduction/remittance of TDS amount. Following the above said decision, we also hold so. 9.1 The Ld A.R expressed the view that there are certain practical difficulties involved in complying with the provisions of TDS. He prayed that the Tribunal may clarify the law on the practical difficulties. We shall address them one by one. The first difficulty pointed out by him is that the payees are not identifiable in respect of certain expenses, even though the same has been included in the yearend provisions. We have noticed earlier that the provision for expenses have been created by the assessee for the liability towards (a) Contract expenses covered by sec. 194C (b) Professional fees covered by sec. 194J (c) Rent expenses covered by sec. 194I (d) Commission expenses covered by sec.194H (e) Payments to non-residents covered by sec. 195 The Ld CIT(A) rejected this submission of the assessee with the following observations:- “4.2 With regard to the appellant’s claim that the identity of the recipients was not known and, hence, it could not have deducted tax on the provisioned amounts, I find that the facts and probability largely belie this claim. It is commonsensical to expect that the appellant’s creation of the provision for the services received by the year end to obtain a correct view of its profit at year end was not based on any arbitrary or whimsical estimate. It is clear from the provisioned expenses that the estimate has followed from pre-existing ITA No.498/Bang/2020 Page 21 of 31 contracts with known parties for identified services and, hence, the accounting of amounts liable to be paid to these parties for services availed as per known terms of transaction is a specific exercise which carries with it the statutory responsibility for deducting tax at source also. The appellant cannot wriggle out of this responsibility by holding that the provisions were made without any basis towards unidentified parties for unascertained liabilities.” From the nature of expenses listed above, the view expressed by Ld CIT(A) appears to be quite reasonable. In our view, it is the responsibility of the assessee to satisfy the assessing officer by preparing a list of expenses, for which payees could not be identified at the time of making provision and the reasons for the same. 9.2 We notice that there are certain judicial rulings holding that there will not be TDS liability, if the payee is not identifiable. We shall discuss about the same. In the case of Dishnet Wireless Ltd vs. DCIT (2015)(154 ITD 827)(Chennai Trib), the Chennai bench of Tribunal held that when the tax deductor cannot ascertain the payee who is the beneficiary of credit of tax deduction at source, the mechanism of Chapter XVII-B cannot be put into service. It was further held that if the payee is identifiable and the amount payable to him is ascertainable, then the assessee would be required to deduct tax at source in respect of such provision. We shall discuss some more decisions:- (a) The first decision is that of Honourable Delhi High Court in case of UCO Bank (369 ITR 335). The facts prevailing in this case are that the Court had directed one of the parties to the suit to deposit certain sums in the High Court. The amount was invested in Fixed deposit by the Registrar General of the High Court with UCO Bank. The High Court dealt with the question as to whether the bank is liable to deduct TDS on the interest income credited to the above said Fixed deposit. The bank’s case was that the Registrar General was merely a custodian of the funds on behalf of the High Court and the Registrar General per se was neither an assessee nor he was beneficiary entitled to receive any interest on the fixed deposits. Under these facts, the Hon’ble Delhi High Court held that if TDS is deducted that would amount to recovery of tax without corresponding income being assessed in the hands of any assessee. In the absence of ascertainable assessee, the machinery of recovering tax by deduction of tax at ITA No.498/Bang/2020 Page 22 of 31 source breaks down because it does not aid the charge of tax u/s 4 of the Act, but takes a form of a separate levy, independent of other provisions of the Act, which is not permissible. Therefore, it can be seen that the decision of the Hon‟ble Delhi High Court has been rendered in the peculiar facts prevailing in that case. (b) The next decision is of Hon‟ble Karnataka High Court in the case of Karnataka Power Transmission Corporation Ltd (383 ITR 59). In this case, the assessee before Hon’ble High Court of Karnataka made provision towards interest payable on delayed payments. However, subsequently assessee noticed that interest is not payable in view of understanding reached between the parties. Accordingly it reversed the provision entries in books of account. Under these set of facts, the Hon’ble Karnataka High Court held that the interest which partakes the character of income alone is liable for deduction of tax at source u/s 194A of the Act. (c) The Mumbai bench of Tribunal, in the case of Industrial Development Bank of India vs. ITO (2007)(107 ITD 45) has examined the aspect of liability to deduct tax at source, when the payees could not be identified. The question before Mumbai bench of Tribunal was whether or not Section. 193 of the Act requires tax deducted at source in respect of the provision for interest accrued but not due made by an assessee where the ultimate recipient of such interest accrued but not due cannot be ascertained at the point of time when the provision is made. In this case, the assessee issued 'Regular Return Bond-Series II’, which carried interest rate of 16 per cent p.a. payable annually. The interest was payable on 9 th of June every year. However, the assessee closed its accounting year on 31 st March. Accordingly, it made provision of interest accrued upto 31 st March, which however has not become due. This issue was adjudicated in a detailed manner. The discussions made by the Tribunal in lucid manner are extracted below:- 9. The above terms and conditions, so far as material for the purposes of our adjudication, can be summarized as follows: (a) The assessee is liable to pay interest @ 16 per cent annually in respect of regular return bondholders. (b) The interest is payable on 9th June of each calendar year, except in the year of maturity, when interest is payable on maturity. ITA No.498/Bang/2020 Page 23 of 31 (c) The interest, except at the time of maturity, is paid to the person whose name is registered in the records of the assessee-company as on 15th May of each calendar year. (d) The bonds are transferable by endorsement and delivery, and the assessee does not, in any way, control such transfer of ownership. Let us now appreciate the impact of the above terms and condition so far the issue in appeal before us is concerned. As on 31st March of the year, the assessee's liability for 'interest accrued but not due' because interest is payable only once annually on a date other than the date of closure of accounts but the assessee will have no means to find out as to who could be the recipients of 'interest due but not payable' in respect of 'regular return bonds' because while assessee's liability to pay interest @ 16 per cent is certain and is to be made as on 31st March, i.e., on the end of the relevant accounting year, the bonds in question being freely transferable, it cannot ascertain as to who will be the registered bondholder as on 15th May of that year. The assessee cannot be expected to have clairvoyance of knowing, as on 31st March, as to who will own the bonds on 15th May of that year. Therefore, in such a situation while the assessee certainly has the liability to pay the interest for the period till the end of the relevant accounting year, the assessee certainly does not know for sure as to who will be entitled to receive this interest...... In our humble understanding, conceptually, liability of TDS is in the nature of a vicarious or substitutionary liability which presupposes existence of a principal or primary liability. Chapter XVII-B is titled 'Collection and recovery of tax--Deduction of tax at source" and this title also indicates that the nature of TDS obligations are obligations for collection and recovery of tax. Under the IT Act, tax is on the income and it is in the hands of the person who receives such income, except in the case of dividend distribution tax which is levied under Section. 115-0--a Section outside the chapter providing for collection and recovery mechanism and set out under a separate chapter 'Determination of tax in certain special cases--Special provision relating to tax on distributed profits of domestic companies'. A plain reading of Section. 190 and Section. 191, which are first two sections under the Chapter XVII, and of Sections 199, 202 and 203(1) would show this underlying feature of the TDS mechanism....... ITA No.498/Bang/2020 Page 24 of 31 Section 190 makes it clear that the scheme of TDS is one of the methods of recovering the tax due from a person and it is notwithstanding the fact that the tax liability may only arise in a later assessment year. The tax liability is obviously in the hands of the person who earns the income and TDS mechanism provides for method to recover tax under such liability. Therefore, this TDS liability is, as we begun by taking note of, a sort of substitutionary liability. Section 191 further makes this position clear when it lays down that in a situation TDS mechanism is not provided for a particular type of income or when the taxes have not been deducted at source in accordance with the provisions of Chapter XVII, income-tax shall be payable by the assessee directly. This provision thus shows that TDS liability is a vicarious liability and the principal liability is of the person who is taxable in respect of such income. Section 199 makes it even more clear by laying down that the credit for taxes deducted at source can only be given to the person from whose income the taxes are so deducted. Therefore, when tax deductor cannot ascertain beneficiaries of a credit, the tax deduction mechanism cannot be put into service. Section 202 lays down that TDS provisions are without any prejudice to any other mode of recovery from the assessee, which again points out to the tax deduction liability being vicarious liability in nature. Section 203(1) then lays down that for all tax deductions at source the tax deductor has to "furnish to the person to whose account such credit is given or to whom such payment is made or the cheque or warrant is issued" which presupposes that at the stage of tax deduction the tax deductor knows the name of person to whom the credit is to be given though whether by way of credit to the account of such person or by way of credit to some other account. This again shows that TDS liability is a vicarious liability to pay tax on behalf of the person who is to be beneficiary of the payment or credit, with a corresponding right to recover such tax payable from the person to whom credit is afforded or payment is made. It would be thus seen that the whole scheme of TDS proceeds on the assumption that the person whose liability is to pay an income knows the identity of the beneficiary or the recipient of the income. It is a sine qua non for a vicarious tax deduction liability that there has to be a principal tax liability in respect of the relevant income first, and a principal tax liability can come into existence when it can be ascertained as to who will receive or earn that income because the tax on the income and in the hands of the person who earns that income. In this view of the matter, TDS ITA No.498/Bang/2020 Page 25 of 31 mechanism cannot be put into practice until identity of the person in whose hands, it is includible as income can be ascertained. 18. It is indeed correct that Explanation to Section. 193 lays down that even when an income is credited to any account in the books of account of the person liable to pay such income, such crediting shall be deemed to be credit of such income to the account of the payee and the provisions of this Section shall apply accordingly, but the fact that the credit to any account is to be deemed to be credit to the payee's account also presupposes that payee can be ascertained. Therefore, this deeming fiction can only be activated when the identity of the payee can be ascertained. To illustrate, in the example that we had taken in para 4 above as long as assessee knows the identity of lenders, whether the assessee credits the interest accrued but not due in the account of the assessee or in some other account, tax would continue to be deductible under Section 193 by the virtue of deeming fiction set out in the Explanation to Section. 193. The liability to pay in such a case would crystallise later, i.e., on due date of 31st December, and the corresponding credit to the lender's account will also be given on 31st December, but the assessee will still have tax deduction liability in respect of interest accrued but not due as on 31st March. However, on the facts of the present case, this Explanation cannot be put into practice because the payee is not known at the stage of provision for 'interest accrued but not due' being made. It is not difficult to visualize that Explanation to Section. 193, which was introduced w.e.f. 1st June, 1989, was apparently to take care of a situation in which instead of crediting the account of the payee, some other proxy account was credited, to avoid the TDS liability being invoked. For example, if at the end of the accounting year, the assessee is to make a provision for interest of Rs. 10,000 payable to Mr. X, but he creates the provision by way of credit to 'interest payable account'. In such a situation 'interest payable account' is de facto a proxy account for Mr. X, either fully or to the extent of the amount payable to Mr. X. However, it could have been argued, in the absence of the Explanation to Section. 193, that since the credit is not to the account of Mr. X, the tax deduction liability cannot be invoked. The Explanation itself makes it clear that even when such a practice is adopted the credit will be deemed to be credit to the payee's account. In our considered view, fiction embodied in the Explanation is only applicable in situations in which tax deduction liability is sought to be escaped by crediting interest to some other account other than that of ITA No.498/Bang/2020 Page 26 of 31 recipient of interest. In our considered view, Explanation to Section. 193 cannot be invoked in a case where the person who is to receive the interest cannot be identified at the stage at which the provision for interest accrued but not due is made. This position is also accepted by the CBDT, as evident from its letter dt. 5th July, 1996 addressed to the Tata Iron and Steel Co. Ltd. (Letter No. 275/126/96 IT (B)], which, inter alia, states as follows: I am directed to refer to your letter ref. 3A 13-21/1460 dt. 23rd May, 1996, on the above subject, and to say that difference between the issue price of Rs. 5,000 and face value of Rs. 25,500 is in the nature of interest subject to provisions of Sections 193/193A. Although the company would be making provisions for interest on year to year basis in their books of account, there will be no deduction of tax at source in each such year as the payee is not known. (Emphasis, italicised in print, supplied by us now) We agree with the merits of the stand so taken by the CDBT. The deduction of tax at source can only be effected when payee is known. As far as the situation before us is concerned, the regular return bonds being transferable on simple endorsement and delivery and the relevant registration date being a date subsequent to the closure of books of account, the assessee could not have ascertained the payees at the point of time when the provision for interest accrued but not due was made. Accordingly, no tax was required to be deducted at source in respect of the provision for interest payable made by the assessee which reflected provision for 'interest accrued but not due' in a situation where the ultimate recipient of such 'interest accrued but not due' could not have been ascertained at the point of time when the provision is made. In the present case, interest to such bondholders is to be paid as are registered with the assessee-company as on 15th May, 1994 but there could not have been any method of ascertaining, as at the time of making the provision for 'interest accrued but not due', i.e., on 31st March, 1994, as to who will be registered bondholders as on 15th May, 1994. It is also important to bear in mind that taxes were duly deducted at source at the time of payment, i.e., on 9th June, 1994 and that there is no loss of revenue as such. In the light of these discussions, we hold that the assessee did not have any liability to deduct tax at source, in respect of provision for 'interest accrued but not due', in respect of regular return bonds made on 31st March, 1994. When there was no obligation of deduct tax at source, ITA No.498/Bang/2020 Page 27 of 31 there cannot be any question of levy of penalty or interest. The appellant, therefore, must succeed.” It can be noticed that the decision, in all these cases has been rendered on the peculiar facts of the case. 9.3 We also notice that in all these decisions, the assessee therein has established the fact that the payees are not identifiable. Hence there should not be any dispute to the proposition that the TDS mechanism will fail, if the payees are not identifiable. However, it is the responsibility of the assessee to prove that payees are not identifiable with credible reasons. Accordingly, if the assessee, in the present case, is able to prove that the payees could not be identified in respect of particular expenses, then the mechanism provided under Chapter XVII-B would fail and hence the AO is not entitled to demand tax u/s 201(1) and interest u/s 201(1A) in respect of those expenses. 10. The second practical difficulty expressed by Ld A.R is that the yearend provisions are made on estimated basis and hence there might be difference between the estimate so made and the actual payments finally made. Under these circumstances, the question that arises is how the provisions of sec.201 could be applied. In our view, the Ld A.R has raised a valid point. Since the yearend provisions are made on estimated basis, following five scenarios may emerge at the time of making actual payments in the succeeding year:- (a) The actual payment made in the succeeding year is more than the provision amount. (b) The actual payment made in the succeeding year is less than the provision amount (c) No payment is required to be made, since it was ascertained that there is no liability to pay the Amount. Accordingly, entire amount of provision is reversed in the succeeding year. (d) Payment has not yet been made in the succeeding year, even though the liability is acknowledged. However, the TDS was deducted/paid in the succeeding year. ITA No.498/Bang/2020 Page 28 of 31 (e) Payment has not yet been made in the succeeding year, even though the liability was acknowledged. However TDS was not deducted in the succeeding year. Under Scenario (a) and (b) above, if the assessee has deducted tax at source at the time of making payment, then the provisions of sec.201(1) will not be attracted as held by us in the preceding paragraphs. However, since there was delay in deduction and payment of TDS amount, the assessee would be liable to pay interest u/s 201(1A) of the Act. We shall discuss the same in the ensuring paragraphs. 10.1 The first scenario is that the actual payment made is more than the amount of provision made. The TDS was deducted at the time of credit or at the time of making actual payment. Since yearend provision was made on 31.3.2012 in this case, the date on which TDS was deductible shall be 31.3.2012. The assessee shall be liable to pay interest from that date to the date of actual deduction/payment as per the provisions of sec.201(1A) of the Act on the amount of “Provision” created as on 31.3.2012. For example, the provision made as on 31.3.2012 was Rs.1000/- and the actual payment made was Rs.1200/-. The interest shall be payable on the provision amount of Rs.1000/-, since the provision amount alone was claimed as deduction during the year ending 31.3.2012. 10.2 The second scenario is that the actual payment made is less than the amount of provision made. The TDS was deducted at the time of credit or at the time of making actual payment. Since yearend provision was made on 31.3.2012 in this case, the date on which TDS was deductible shall be 31.3.2012. The assessee shall be liable to pay interest from that date to the date of actual deduction/payment as per the provisions of sec.201(1A) of the Act on the amount of “actual payment” made. For example, the provision made as on 31.3.2012 was Rs.1000/- and the actual payment made was Rs.800/-. The assessee would be reversing the excess provision of Rs.200/- in the succeeding year. Hence the liability to deduct TDS shall arise on the amount of actual payment only. We derive support in this regard from the decision rendered by Mumbai bench of Tribunal in the case of Industrial Development Bank of India (supra), wherein it was held that “It is a sine qua non for a vicarious tax deduction liability that there has to be a principal tax liability in respect of the relevant income first.” In this scenario, the principal tax liability upon the ITA No.498/Bang/2020 Page 29 of 31 recipient will be on the amount of Rs.800/- only. Accordingly, the TDS liability will also on the above said amount actually paid and consequently, the interest u/s 201(1A) shall be leviable on Rs.800/-. 10.3 The third scenario is that no payment was required to be made in the succeeding year, since it was ascertained that there was no liability to pay the Amount. Accordingly, entire amount of provision was reversed in the succeeding year. In this scenario, there will no liability to deduct tax at source from the amount of provision created as on 31.3.2012, as it was found that the said amount is not payable at all to anyone. Hence this provision amount cannot be linked to any payee, in which case, there will not be any liability to deduct tax at source from the provision amount. Hence, in our view, the provisions of sec.201 will not be applicable in this scenario. 10.4 The fourth scenario is that the payment was not yet made in the succeeding year, even though the liability to pay was acknowledged. However, Tax was deducted at source and paid in the succeeding year. In this scenario, the interest u/s 201(1A) shall be payable as discussed in Scenario 1 above. 10.5 The fifth scenario is that the payment was not yet made in the succeeding year, even though the liability was acknowledged. TDS was also not deducted in the succeeding year. In this scenario, the assessee would be liable to pay demand u/s 201(1) of the Act equivalent to the TDS amount deductible on the entire amount of provision. The assessee shall also be liable to pay interest u/s 201(1A) of the Act till the date of deduction/payment, which may cross the succeeding year. 10.6 We noticed earlier that the assessee has claimed to have deducted tax at source at the time of accounting of invoices/payments. Accordingly, the yearend provisions may fall under anyone of the categories discussed above. Accordingly, we restore this issue to the file of AO in order to enable him to re-compute the liability, if any, u/s 201(1) and interest u/s 201(1A) of the Act. 10.7 We noticed earlier that the yearend provisions made by the assessee included “Commission payable to non-residents”, which is liable for deduction of tax at source u/s 195 of the Act. The provisions of sec.195 are triggered only if that payment is chargeable under the provisions of Income tax Act. We notice that the assessee has not ITA No.498/Bang/2020 Page 30 of 31 furnished any detail to the AO/CIT(A) with regard to the applicability or otherwise of provisions of sec.195 to the above said payment. Hence we restore this issue also to the file of the AO for examining it afresh in accordance with law and in the light of discussions made supra." 11. We also notice that the above decision in the case of Biocon Ltd (supra) is followed by the Hon’ble Tribunal in the decision of assessee’s own case for AYs 2012-13 & 2013-14. 12. The ld AR in the submissions made with the breakup of the provisions has split the provisions made under various categories from TDS perspective such as :- i. Provision created for payments where parties are not identifiable ii. Provision was created but no invoices received from the vendors iii. Provision created for payments made for purchase of material iv. Provision created for parties where certificate for NIL deduction of tax was issued v. Provision created for parties covered under section 172 of the Act vi. Provision created for parties covered under section 194C(6) of the Act vii. Provision created for parties to whom payment was made on receipt of Invoice in subsequent year after deduction of TDS 13. The above break-up of provision for expenses needs to be examined factually based on evidences in order to decide the applicability of TDS provisions. We therefore remit this issue back to the AO for verification of each of the above line item of the break-up of details based on evidences and examine the issue factually for deciding the applicability of TDS provisions. The AO is directed to keep in mind the ratio laid down by the coordinate bench of the Tribunal in the case of Biocon Ltd. (supra) which is followed in ITA No.498/Bang/2020 Page 31 of 31 assessee’s own case for the assessment year 2012-13 and 2013-14 wherein the Hon’ble Tribunal has envisaged various scenarios with regard to the liability to deduct tax at source, the levy u/s.201(1) and the method of calculation of interest u/s.201(1A). Needless to say that assessee may be given opportunity of being heard. 14. In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Pronounced in the open court on this 25 th day of August, 2022. Sd/- Sd/- ( GEORGE GEORGE K. ) ( PADMAVATHY S. ) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Bangalore, Dated, the 25 th August, 2022. / Desai S Murthy / Copy to: 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. CIT 4. CIT(A) 5. DR, ITAT, Bangalore. By order Assistant Registrar ITAT, Bangalore.