TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2016 (5) TMI 328
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....cts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in not appreciating the facts of the case and deciding the appeal of the assessee on the basis of decision of Hon'ble ITAT in the case of M/s. Pfizer Ltd. which is not accepted by the Department and the Department has filed further appeal in the case of M/s. Pfizer Ltd. ii) On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in deleting the non deduction of tax by holding that in view of disallowance u/s. 40(a)(ia), no demand can be raised u/s.201(1) of the I.T.Act without appreciating the intent & spirit of section 40(a)(ia) vis-a-vis TDS provisions under chapter XVII of the Act. iii) On the facts and circumstances of the ca....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....OT 277 (2013). It is also argued that the said order has been challenged therefore, the decision given by the learned CIT(A) on the basis of said decision is wrong against law and facts and is liable to be set aside. Whereas on the other hand the learned representative of the assessee refuted the said contention. Before deciding the matter of controversy, it is necessary to advert the operation part of the order of learned CIT(A) in quantum on record. The finding of learned CIT(A) is hereby mentioned below:- "3.7. I have considered the issue and also gone through the case laws cited by the appellant. There is no dispute that the appellant themselves disallowed these expenses u/s.40(a)(ia) of the Act. The AO has not made any further....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... deducted at the time of credit/payment whichever was earlier. Hence I am not in agreement with appellant on this for the reason that Act fastens the liability at the time of credit or payment whichever is earlier. Here appellant has credited amount of Rs. 28,21,000/- in P.Y. relevant to A.Y.2009-10 and hence deduction of tax subsequently will not absolve them from levy of interest u/s.201(1) and 201(1A) of the Act. Further, for the balance amount of Rs. 56,72,719/- though claimed the appellant have failed to show that entries were not credited in respective parties individual accounts and also failed to show that they were reversed in a particular year subsequently. Thus in principle action of A.O. is upheld for the levy of interest treati....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....section 201(1) of the Act in respect of same amount again. If the revenue's contention was to be accepted, then disallowance under section 40(a)(i)/40(a)(ia) cannot be made and the provisions of section 40(a)(i)/40(a)(ia) to that extent may become otiose. Conclusion: Provisions of TDS are not applicable if the payee is not identifiable. Assessee cannot be treated as an assessee in default under section 201(1) of the Act, if the amounts are disallowed under section 40(a)(i)/40(a)(ia) of the Act. 3.9. It is noted that the whole premise of that decision that when disallowances were made by appellant themselves, interest u/s.201(1) and 201(1A) of the Act is not leviable actually, has been brought in the section 201(1)....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....pparent that the learned CIT(A) has decided the matter of controversy on the basis of order passed by the Jurisdictional High Court in case of CIT Vs. Pfizer Ltd., 330 ITR 62 (Bom.). The finding of the said case is also mentioned below:- "4.2 I have considered the above submissions of the appellant as well as the facts of the case. It is seen that an amount of Rs. 5,49,796/- was quantified by the chartered accountants of the appellant in the tax audit report for disallowance under section 40(a)(ia) of the Act. Therefore, while filing the return of income, the appellant suo moto disallowed an amount of Rs. 5,50,000/- in the computation of income. Thus, the appellant did not claim the deduction in regard to these expenses incurred. T....