State Bank of India HR Section Admin Unit Branch , Bangalore V. Assistant Commissioner of Income TAx Circle-18(2) TDS C-3(1), Bangalore

ITA 1095/BANG/2017

• Counselvise Citation: [2018] 122 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 3901 (ITAT-BANGALORE)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 4 month(s) 10 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 28-09-2018
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Assessment Year: 2011-2012
• Appeal Filed On: 18-05-2017
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: SIDDAPPAJI R N CIT HEARD ON PR
• Section: 201(1)

Judgement Text

ITA.1095 TO 1103/BANG/2017 PAGE - 1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL BENGALURU BENCH 'A', BENGALURU BEFORE SHRI. JASON P. BOAZ, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI. LALIET KUMAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER 1-3. I.T.A NOS.1095 TO 1997/BANG/2017 (ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2011-12, 2011-12 & 2013-14) 4.6. I.T.A NOS.1098, 1100 & 1101/BANG/2017 (ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2011-12 TO 2013-14) 7-9. I.T.A NOS.1099, 1102 & 1103/BANG/2017 (ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2011-12 TO 2013-14) 1-3. STATE BANK OF INDIA, H R SECTION, ADMIN UNIT BRANCH, 1 ST FLOOR, KANAKAS PRIDE, 13/1, BULL TEMPLE ROAD, BASAVANAGUDI, BENGALURU 560 004 .. APPELLANT PAN : AAACS8577K 4-6. STATE BANK OF INDIA, INSPECTION AND AUDIT DEPARTMENT, BRANCH 58, CORPORATE CENTRE, 1 ST MAIN ROAD, SESHADRIPURAM, BENGALURU 560 020 .. APPELLANT PAN : BLRSO0742A 7-9. STATE BANK OF INDIA, LOCAL HEAD OFFICE BRANCH, ST. MARKS ROAD, BENGALURU 560 001 .. APPELLANT V. ITA.1095 TO 1103/BANG/2017 PAGE - 2 1-9. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE -18(2), TDS, CIRCLE-3(1)BENGALURU .. RESPONDENT ASSESSEE BY : NONE REVENUE BY : SHRI. SIDDAPPAJI R. N. ADDL. CIT HEARD ON : 24.09.2018 PRONOUNCED ON : 28.09.2018 O R D E R PER BENCH : THESE ARE NINE APPEALS, FILED BY THREE DIFFERENT A SSESSEES OF STATE BANK OF INDIA GROUP, FOR THE ASSESSMENT ORDER S 2011-12 TO 2013-14, AGAINST RESPECTIVE ORDER OF THE CIT (A) -1 3, BENGALURU. 02. THE ASSESSEES HAVE RAISED THE FOLLOWING COMMON GROUNDS OF APPEAL, BUT FOR CHANGE IN THE FIGURES FOR THE RESPE CTIVE YEARS : ITA.1095 TO 1103/BANG/2017 PAGE - 3 ITA.1095 TO 1103/BANG/2017 PAGE - 4 03. ON 01.01.2018 THE LD. AR APPEARED BEFORE THIS T RIBUNAL AND REQUESTED FOR CLUBBING OF THESE APPEALS AND ACCORDI NGLY THESE APPEALS WERE CLUBBED AND HEARD TOGETHER AND A COM MON ORDER IS PASSED FOR THE SAKE OF CONVENIENCE AND BREVITY. 04. TODAY NONE APPEARED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE A LTHOUGH NOTICE WAS SERVICED AND FURTHER ON EARLIER OCCASION THE ASSESSEES WERE REPRESENTED BY THE COUNSEL. THEREFORE IN THE ABSENCE OF THE APPEARANCE OF THE LD. AR, WE PROCEED TO DISPOSE THE MATTERS WITH THE ASSISTANCE OF LD. DR FOR REVENUE AND THE MATERI AL ON RECORD. 05. AT THE OUTSET, THE LD. DR SUBMITTED THAT THE IS SUES RAISED IN THE APPEALS OF THE ASSESSEE ARE COVERED AGAINST THE ASSESSEE BY THE DECISION OF THE COORDINATE BENCH IN THE MATTER OF S YNDICATE BANK V. ACIT [80 TAXMANN.COM 179] WHERE THE TRIBUNAL RELYIN G UPON THE ITS OWN DECISION IN THE ASSESSEES OWN CASE [67 TAX MANN.COM 81] DECIDED THE ISSUE AGAINST THE ASSESSEES. 06. WE HAVE HEARD THE LD. DR AND PERUSED THE RECORD . THE CIT (A) IN PARA 6.5 OF HIS ORDER HAD HELD AS UNDER : 6.5 I AM IN AGREEMENT WITH THE A.O. THAT AS PER THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 10(5) OF THE ACT, ONLY THE REIMBURSEMENT OF EXPENSES, WHICH WERE INCURRED ON T RAVEL OF EMPLOYEES AND HIS FAMILY TO ANY PLACE IN INDIA S UBJECT TO CERTAIN CONDITIONS, ARE EXEMPT. SINCE THE EMPLOYEE OF THE ASSESSEE HAS TRAVELLED TO FOREIGN COUNTRIES, THE BE NEFIT OF EXEMPTION AVAILABLE UNDER SECTION 10(5) OF THE ACT CANNOT BE GRANTED. AT THE TIME OF ADVANCEMENT OF LTC AMOUN T, THE EMPLOYER MAY NOT HAVE BEEN AWARE OF IT, BUT AT THE TIME OF SETTLEMENT OF BILLS OF LTC/LFC, COMPLETE DE TAILS ARE OBTAINED BY THE EMPLOYER AND ARE AVAILABLE TO I T. ONCE IT IS NOTICED THAT THE EMPLOYEE HAS VISITED FO REIGN ITA.1095 TO 1103/BANG/2017 PAGE - 5 COUNTRIES AND HE IS NOT ENTITLED FOR EXEMPTION OF REIMBURSEMENT OF LTC UNDER SECTION 10(5) OF THE ACT , THE EMPLOYER OUGHT TO HAVE DEDUCTED TAX AT SOURCE TREATING THE AMOUNT AS NOT EXEMPT AND AS BEING PART OF THE EMPLOYEE'S TOTAL SALARY. SINCE THE ASSESSEE HAS INTENTIONALLY NOT DEDUCTED TAX AT SOURCE ON A PAYMENT, TO WHICH THE EMPLOYEE IS NOT ENTITLED FOR ANY EXEMPTION, THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS RIGHTLY HELD T HE ASSESSEE TO BE IN DEFAULT AND RAISED THE DEMAND UND ER SECTION 20 1(1) AND 201(1A) OF THE ACT. WE HAVE GONE THROUGH THE PROVISION OF LAW AS WELL A S THE DECISION OF THE TRIBUNAL IN THE MATTER OF SYNDICATE BANK (SU PRA) WHERE IN PARA 8 OF THE ORDER IT WAS HELD AS UNDER: 8. AS RIGHTLY HIGHLIGHTED BY THE HON'BLE TRIBUNAL, LUC KNOW BENCH (SUPRA) AND CAREFUL PERUSAL OF THE PROVISIONS OF S.10(5) OF THE ACT, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THE SAID PROVIS ION WAS INTRODUCED IN ORDER TO MOTIVATE THE EMPLOYEES AND A LSO TO ENCOURAGE TOURISM IN INDIA AND, THEREFORE, THE REIMBURSEMENT OF LTC/LFC WAS EXEMPTED, BUT, THERE W AS NO INTENTION OF THE LEGISLATURE TO ALLOW THE EMPLOYEES TO TRAVEL ABROAD UNDER THE GARB OF BENEFIT OF LTC AVAILABLE B Y VIRTUE OF S.10(5) OF THE ACT . HOWEVER, IN THE PRESENT CASE THE EMPLOYEES OF THE ASSESSEE-BANK HAVE TRAVELLED OUTSI DE INDIA AND RAISED CLAIMS OF THEIR EXPENDITURE INCURRED THE REIN. THERE IS NO DISPUTE THAT THE ASSESSEE-BANK MAY NOT BE AWA RE WITH THE PLAN OF TRAVEL OF ITS EMPLOYEES INITIALLY, HOWEVER, AT THE TIME OF SETTLEMENT OF LTC/LFC BILLS, THE EMPLOYEES SHOULD H AVE PLACED COMPREHENSIVE DETAILS BEFORE THE ASSESSEE-BANK AS T O WHERE THEY HAVE TRAVELLED/VISITED AND RAISED THE CLAIMS, THAT MEANS TO SAY, THE ASSESSEE-BANK WAS WELL AWARE OF THE FACT T HAT ITS EMPLOYEES HAVE TRAVELLED IN FOREIGN COUNTRIES TOO B Y AVAILING LTC/LFC FOR WHICH THEY WERE NOT ENTITLED FOR EXEMPT ION U/S. 10(5) OF THE ACT. SUCH BEING THE SCENARIO, THE ASSE SSEE-BANK CANNOT NOW PLEAD THAT IT WAS UNDER THE BONA FIDE BE LIEF THAT THE AMOUNTS CLAIMED WERE EXEMPT U/S. 10(5) OF THE A CT. THUS, THE ASSESSING OFFICER(TDS) WAS WITHIN HER DOMAIN TO TERM/CHARGE THAT THE ASSESSEE-BANK WAS UNDER OBLIGA TION TO DEDUCT TDS ON SUCH PAYMENTS. SINCE THE ASSESSEE-BAN K HAD ITA.1095 TO 1103/BANG/2017 PAGE - 6 FAILED TO DO SO, THE A.O.(TDS) HAD RIGHTLY TREATED THE ASSESSEE AN 'ASSESSEE IN DEFAULT' U/S. 201(1) OF THE ACT. THE VIEW TAKEN BY THE COORDINATE BENCH HEREINABOVE IS IN CONFORMITY WITH THE PROVISION OF LAW IN SECTION 10( 5) OF THE ACT AND THERE IS NO DISTINGUISHABLE FACT, BROUGHT TO OUR NO TICE BY THE DR FOR THE REVENUE. AS THE FACTS AND DISPUTE RAISED BEFOR E US, SQUARELY COVERED BY THE DECISION OF SYNDICATE BANK CASE (SUP RA) THEREFORE IN OUR VIEW, THE APPEALS OF THE THREE ASSESSMENT YEARS OF THE ASSESSEE MENTIONED HEREIN ABOVE IN RESPECT TO AYS. 2011-12 T O 2013-14 ARE REQUIRED TO BE DISMISSED ON MERIT. 07. WE MAY ALSO LIKE TO POINT OUT THAT EVEN OTHERWI SE THE APPEALS OF THE ASSESSEE ARE LIABLE TO BE DISMISSED ON THE G ROUND OF NON- PROSECUTION, AS NONE APPEARED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSE SSEE BEFORE US DESPITE SERVICE, HENCE THE APPEALS ARE DISMISSED FO R NON PROSECUTION AS WELL AS ON MERITS MENTIONED HEREIN ABOVE. 08. IN THE RESULT, ALL THE NINE APPEALS OF THE ASSE SSEE ARE DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 28 TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2018. SD/- SD/- (JASON P. BOAZ) (LALIET KUMAR) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBE R BENGALURU DATED : 28.09.2018 MCN* ITA.1095 TO 1103/BANG/2017 PAGE - 7 COPY TO: 1. THE ASSESSEE 2. THE ASSESSING OFFICER 3. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX 4. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX(A) 5. DR 6. GF, ITAT, BANGALORE BY ORDER SENIOR PRIVATE SECRETARY, INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, BANGALORE.