State Bank of India Centralized Clearing Processing Centre , Bangalore V. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-18(2) TDS Circle-3(1), Bangalore

ITA 1312/BANG/2017

• Counselvise Citation: [2018] 121 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 4591 (ITAT-BANGALORE)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 5 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 15-06-2018
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: C
• Assessment Year: 2013-2014
• Appeal Filed On: 09-06-2017
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: M RAJASHEKAR
• Assessee Lawyers: MURALIDHARA H
• Section: 201(1)

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL C BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI N.V. VASUDEVAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI ARUN KUMAR GARODIA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER APPEAL NO. APPELLANT RESPONDENT ASSESS MENT YEAR ITA NO. 1309/BANG/2017 M/S. STATE BANK OF INDIA, BAGMANE TECH PARK BRANCH, UNIT 13, GROUND FLOOR, BAGMANE COMMERCIAL ESCAPE MALL, C.V. RAMAN NAGAR, BANGALORE. PAN: AAACS8577K VS. THE ACIT, CIRCLE 18 (2), TDS-CIRCLE 3 (1), BANGALORE. 2011-12 ITA NO. 1310/BANG/2017 M/S. STATE BANK OF INDIA, CENTRALIZED CLEARING PROCESSING CENTRE, 1 ST FLOOR,VASAVI COMPLEX, NO. 17, ST. MARKS ROAD,BANGALORE. PAN: AAACS8577K 2012-13 ITA NO. 1311/BANG/2017 M/S. STATE BANK OF INDIA, HR SECTION UNIT BRANCH,1 ST FLOOR, KANAKAS PRIDE,OPP. RAMAKRISHNA ASHRAM, 13/1 BULL TEMPLE ROAD, BASAVANAGUDI,BANGALORE 560 004. PAN: AAACS8577K ITA NO. 1312/BANG/2017 M/S. STATE BANK OF INDIA, CENTRALIZED CLEARING PROCESSING CENTRE, 1 ST FLOOR,VASAVI COMPLEX, NO. 17, ST. MARKS ROAD,BANGALORE. PAN: AAACS8577K 2013-14 ITA NO. 1313/BANG/2017 M/S. STATE BANK OF INDIA, RACPC-III, BANASWADIMARUTHI MANSION, II 7M-422, 80 FEET ROAD, KALYAN NAGAR, BANGALORE. PAN: AAACS8577K ITA NO. 1314/BANG/2017 M/S. STATE BANK OF INDIA, SPECIALISED HOUSING FINANCE BRANCH, 1154, 2 ND FLOOR, 26 TH MAIN, JAYANAGAR 4 TH BLOCK, BANGALORE. PAN: AAACS8577K APPELLANT BY : SHRI MURALIDHARA .H, CA RESPONDENT BY : SHRI M. RAJASHEKAR, ADDL. CIT (DR) DATE OF HEARING : 0 5 .0 6 .2018 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 15 .0 6 .2018 ITA NOS. 1309 TO 1314/BANG/2017 PAGE 2 OF 15 O R D E R PER BENCH ALL THESE SIX APPEALS ARE FILED BY DIFFERENT BRANCH ES OF STATE BANK OF INDIA AND THESE APPEALS ARE DIRECTED AGAINST SIX SEPARATE ORD ERS OF LD. CIT(A)-13, BANGALORE DATED 25.04.2017 AND 26.04.2017. 2. THE GROUNDS RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE FOR ASSESSMEN T YEAR 2011-12 IN ITA NO. 1309/BANG/2017 ARE AS UNDER. 1. THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED CIT (APPEALS), ON ASPEC TS AGITATED IN THIS APPEAL, IS BAD IN LAW, CONTRARY TO THE PROVISIONS O F LAW AND FACTS OF THE CASE AND WITHOUT APPRECIATION OF THE FACTS AND CIRC UMSTANCES OF THE CASE IN THEIR RIGHT PERSPECTIVE. 2. THE LEARNED CIT (APPEALS) ERRED IN PASSING AN OR DER UNDER SECTION 201(1) AND 201(1A) RAISING DEMAND OF RS.89,224/- ON THE BASIS THAT TAX WAS NOT DEDUCTED AT SOURCE ON PAYMENT OF LEAVE TRAVEL CONCESSION. 3. THE LEARNED CIT (APPEALS) ERRED IN NOT APPRECIAT ING THAT THE BENEFIT OF LEAVE TRAVEL CONCESSION IS AVAILABLE TO THE BANK 'S EMPLOYEE EVEN IN CASES WHERE THE JOURNEY UNDERTAKEN BY AN EMPLOYE E INVOLVES A FOREIGN LEG BUT THE EMPLOYEE'S DESIGNATED PLACE IS IN INDIA AND HE ACTUALLY VISITS THE PLACE AS DESIGNATED. 4. THE LEARNED CIT (APPEALS) ERRED IN MAKING THE FO LLOWING OBSERVATION, HOLDING AS UNDER: I AM IN AGREEMENT WITH THE A.O. THAT AS PER THE PR OVISIONS OF SECTION 10(5) OF THE ACT, ONLY THE REIMBURSEMENT OF EXPENSE S, WHICH ARE INCURRED ON TRAVEL OF EMPLOYEES AND HIS FAMILY TO A NY PLACE IN INDIA SUBJECT TO CERTAIN CONDITIONS, ARE EXEMPT. SINCE TH E 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 AMOUNT, THE EMPLOYER MAY NOT HAVE BEEN AWARE OF IT, BUT AT THE TIME OF SETTLEMENT OF BILLS OF LTC/ LFC, COMPLETE DETAILS ARE OBTAINED BY THE EMPLOYER AND A RE AVAILABLE TO IT. ONCE IT IS NOTICED THAT THE EMPLOYEE HAS VISITED FO REIGN COUNTRIES AND HE IS NOT ENTITLED FOR EXEMPTION FOR REIMBURSEMENT OF LTC UNDER SECTION 10(5) OF THE ACT, THE EMPLOYER OUGHT TO HAV E DEDUCTED TAX AT SOURCE TREATING THE AMOUNT AS NOT EXEMPT AND AS BEI NG PART OF THE EMPLOYEE'S TOTAL SALARY. SINCE THE ASSESSEE HAS INT ENTIONALLY NOT DEDUCTED TAX AT SOURCE ON A PAYMENT, TO WHICH THE E MPLOYEE IS NOT ENTITLED FOR ANY EXEMPTION, THE ASSESSING OFFICER H AS RIGHTLY HELD THE ASSESSEE TO BE IN DEFAULT AND RAISED THE DEMAND UND ER SECTION 201(1) AND 201(1A) OF THE ACT.' THE ABOVE OBSERVATIONS ARE WITHOUT ANY BASIS AND AR E CONTRARY TO THE ITA NOS. 1309 TO 1314/BANG/2017 PAGE 3 OF 15 FACTS OF THE CASE. THE APPELLANT OBJECTS TO THESE O BSERVATIONS/ CONCLUSIONS. 5. THE CIT (APPEALS) HAS OBSERVED IN PARA 8.1 OF HI S ORDER AS FOLLOWS: 'THUS, IN THE CASE OF GWALIOR RAYON, THE BONAFIDE O F THE EMPLOYER WAS NOT IN DOUBT WHEREAS IN THE INSTANT CASE, AS REPROD UCED IN PARA 6.7 ABOVE, THE AO HAS SPECIFICALLY BROUGHT OUT HOW THE APPELLANT WAS SEIZED OF THE MATTER THAT EMPLOYEES ARE PURPOSELY T AKING CIRCUITOUS ROUTE. THE APPELLANT HAS ALSO NOT BROUGHT ON RECORD ANY EVIDENCE WHATSOEVER TO SHOW THAT IN CONSIDERING THE AMOUNT E XEMPT U/S 10(5) OF THE I.T ACT, IT ACTED IN A BONAFIDE MANNED OR TH AT THERE WAS ANY BASIS OF ARRIVING AT THIS CONCLUSION (OF AMOUNT BEI NG EXEMPT)'. THE LEARNED CIT (APPEALS) HAS ERRED IN COMMENTING T HAT THE APPELLANT HAS NOT PROVEN' ITS BONAFIDE BY PROVIDING ANY MATERIAL. WHEREAS APPELLANT HAD PRODUCED BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER RULES AND GUIDELINES FOR LFC ISSUED BY THE ALL INDIA BANK S ASSOCIATION AND APPELLANT UNDERSTANDING WAS THAT ALL IMPORTANT MATT ERS RELATING TO BANKS HAVE BEEN CIRCULATED BY THE ASSOCIATION AND T HE APPELLANT HAD NO REASONS O BELIEVE THAT SUCH CIRCULARS WERE NOT I N ACCORDANCE WITH THE PROVISIONS OF INCOME TAX ACT AND MORE PARTICULA RLY IN THE LIGHT OF PAST PRACTICE BEING FOLLOWED BY THE BANK FOR SEVERA L YEARS AND IT WAS ACCEPTED BY THE DEPARTMENT IN COMPUTING ITS LIABILI TY TOWARDS TDS IN RELATION TO PAYMENT OF LFC AND EXEMPTION U/S 10(5). 6. WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO THE ABOVE, THE LEARNED CIT (APPEALS) ERRED IN NOT APPRECIATING THAT THE EMPLOYEE IS ENTITLED TO E XEMPTION UNDER SECTION 10(5) TO THE EXTENT OF EXPENSES INCURRED FO R TRAVEL IN INDIA WHERE THE EMPLOYEE'S DESIGNATED PLACE IS IN INDIA A ND HE ACTUALLY VISITS THE PLACE AS DESIGNATED EVEN IN CASES WHERE THE JOURNEY UNDERTAKEN BY AN EMPLOYEE INVOLVES A FOREIGN LEG. 7. THE LEARNED CIT (APPEALS) HAS NOT APPRECIATED TH E FACT THAT THIS PRACTICE HAS BEEN FOLLOWED FOR THE LAST SEVERAL YEA RS BY THE APPELLANT. THE LEARNED CIT (APPEALS) HAS STATED THAT PRINCIPLE OF RES JUDICATA IS NOT APPLICABLE TO INCOME TAX PROCEEDINGS. THE CIT ( APPEALS) HAS RELIED ON THE FOLLOWING DECISIONS: (I) INSTALLMENTS SUPPLY PRIVATE LIMITED VS. UNION O F INDIA, 1962 SC 53 (II) RADHA SWAMY SATSANG VYAS VS. CIT, 1992 AIR 377 (III) DISTRIBUTORS (BARODA) PRIVATE LIMITED VS. UNI ON OF INDIA, 1986 1 SCC 43 WHEREAS THE FACTS OF THESE CASES ARE DIFFERENT FROM THAT OF THE APPELLANT. HENCE THE CASES REFERRED ARE NOT APPLICA BLE. 8. WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO THE ABOVE, THE LEARNED CIT (APPEALS) ERRED IN COMPUTING INTEREST WITHOUT FURNISHING THE DETAILED WORKING OF THE ITA NOS. 1309 TO 1314/BANG/2017 PAGE 4 OF 15 INTEREST. 9. THE LEARNED CIT (APPEALS) ERRED IN NOT APPRECIAT ING THE SUBMISSIONS MADE BY THE BANK IN THE CORRECT PERSPEC TIVE. 10. ON SIMILAR FACTS THE LEARNED CIT (APPEALS) NAGP UR HAS HELD THAT THE TRAVEL ALLOWANCE PAID FOR THE JOURNEY IN INDIA IS WELL WITHIN THE LIMITS OF THE PROVISIONS U/S 10(5) READ WITH RULE 2 B. 11. WITH THESE AND SUCH OTHER GROUNDS THAT MAY BE U RGED AT THE TIME OF HEARING THE APPELLANT PRAYS FOR THE RELIEF SOUGH T FOR. 3. THE GROUNDS RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE FOR ASSESSMEN T YEAR 2012-13 IN ITA NO. 1310/BANG/2017 ARE AS UNDER. 1. THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED CIT (APPEALS), ON ASPEC TS AGITATED IN THIS APPEAL, IS BAD IN LAW, CONTRARY TO THE PROVISIONS O F LAW AND FACTS OF THE CASE AND WITHOUT APPRECIATION OF THE FACTS AND CIRC UMSTANCES OF THE CASE IN THEIR RIGHT PERSPECTIVE. 2. THE LEARNED CIT (APPEALS) ERRED IN PASSING AN OR DER UNDER SECTION 201(1) AND 201(1A) RAISING DEMAND OF RS.8,34,690/- ON THE BASIS THAT TAX WAS NOT DEDUCTED AT SOURCE ON PAYMENT OF LEAVE TRAVEL CONCESSION. 3. THE LEARNED CIT (APPEALS) ERRED IN NOT APPRECIAT ING THAT THE BENEFIT OF LEAVE TRAVEL CONCESSION IS AVAILABLE TO THE BANK 'S EMPLOYEE EVEN IN CASES WHERE THE JOURNEY UNDERTAKEN BY AN EMPLOYE E INVOLVES A FOREIGN LEG BUT THE EMPLOYEE'S DESIGNATED PLACE IS IN INDIA AND HE ACTUALLY VISITS THE PLACE AS DESIGNATED. 4. THE LEARNED CIT (APPEALS) ERRED IN MAKING THE FO LLOWING OBSERVATION, HOLDING AS UNDER: I AM IN AGREEMENT WITH THE A.O. THAT AS PER THE PR OVISIONS OF SECTION 10(5) OF THE ACT, ONLY THE REIMBURSEMENT OF EXPENSE S, WHICH ARE INCURRED ON TRAVEL OF EMPLOYEES AND HIS FAMILY TO A NY PLACE IN INDIA SUBJECT TO CERTAIN CONDITIONS, ARE EXEMPT. SINCE TH E 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 AMOUNT, THE EMPLOYER MAY NOT HAVE BEEN AWARE OF IT, BUT AT THE TIME OF SETTLEMENT OF BILLS OF LTC/ LFC, COMPLETE DETAILS ARE OBTAINED BY THE EMPLOYER AND A RE AVAILABLE TO IT. ONCE IT IS NOTICED THAT THE EMPLOYEE HAS VISITED FO REIGN COUNTRIES AND HE IS NOT ENTITLED FOR EXEMPTION FOR REIMBURSEMENT OF LTC UNDER SECTION 10(5) OF THE ACT, THE EMPLOYER OUGHT TO HAV E DEDUCTED TAX AT SOURCE TREATING THE AMOUNT AS NOT EXEMPT AND AS BEI NG PART OF THE EMPLOYEE'S TOTAL SALARY. SINCE THE ASSESSEE HAS INT ENTIONALLY NOT DEDUCTED TAX AT SOURCE ON A PAYMENT, TO WHICH THE E MPLOYEE IS NOT ENTITLED FOR ANY EXEMPTION, THE ASSESSING OFFICER H AS RIGHTLY HELD THE ITA NOS. 1309 TO 1314/BANG/2017 PAGE 5 OF 15 ASSESSEE TO BE IN DEFAULT AND RAISED THE DEMAND UND ER SECTION 201(1) AND 201(1A) OF THE ACT.' THE ABOVE OBSERVATIONS ARE WITHOUT ANY BASIS AND AR E CONTRARY TO THE FACTS OF THE CASE. THE APPELLANT OBJECTS TO THESE O BSERVATIONS/ CONCLUSIONS. 5. THE CIT (APPEALS) HAS OBSERVED IN PARA 8.1 OF HI S ORDER AS FOLLOWS: 'THUS, IN THE CASE OF GWALIOR RAYON, THE BONAFIDE O F THE EMPLOYER WAS NOT IN DOUBT WHEREAS IN THE INSTANT CASE, AS REPROD UCED IN PARA 6.7 ABOVE, THE AO HAS SPECIFICALLY BROUGHT OUT HOW THE APPELLANT WAS SEIZED OF THE MATTER THAT EMPLOYEES ARE PURPOSELY T AKING CIRCUITOUS ROUTE. THE APPELLANT HAS ALSO NOT BROUGHT ON RECORD ANY EVIDENCE WHATSOEVER TO SHOW THAT IN CONSIDERING THE AMOUNT E XEMPT U/S 10(5) OF THE I.T ACT, IT ACTED IN A BONAFIDE MANNED OR TH AT THERE WAS ANY BASIS OF ARRIVING AT THIS CONCLUSION (OF AMOUNT BEI NG EXEMPT)'. THE LEARNED CIT (APPEALS) HAS ERRED IN COMMENTING T HAT THE APPELLANT HAS NOT PROVEN' ITS BONAFIDE BY PROVIDING ANY MATERIAL. WHEREAS APPELLANT HAD PRODUCED BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER RULES AND GUIDELINES FOR LFC ISSUED BY THE ALL INDIA BANK S ASSOCIATION AND APPELLANT UNDERSTANDING WAS THAT ALL IMPORTANT MATT ERS RELATING TO BANKS HAVE BEEN CIRCULATED BY THE ASSOCIATION AND T HE APPELLANT HAD NO REASONS O BELIEVE THAT SUCH CIRCULARS WERE NOT I N ACCORDANCE WITH THE PROVISIONS OF INCOME TAX ACT AND MORE PARTICULA RLY IN THE LIGHT OF PAST PRACTICE BEING FOLLOWED BY THE BANK FOR SEVERA L YEARS AND IT WAS ACCEPTED BY THE DEPARTMENT IN COMPUTING ITS LIABILI TY TOWARDS TDS IN RELATION TO PAYMENT OF LFC AND EXEMPTION U/S 10(5). 6. WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO THE ABOVE, THE LEARNED CIT (APPEALS) ERRED IN NOT APPRECIATING THAT THE EMPLOYEE IS ENTITLED TO E XEMPTION UNDER SECTION 10(5) TO THE EXTENT OF EXPENSES INCURRED FO R TRAVEL IN INDIA WHERE THE EMPLOYEE'S DESIGNATED PLACE IS IN INDIA A ND HE ACTUALLY VISITS THE PLACE AS DESIGNATED EVEN IN CASES WHERE THE JOURNEY UNDERTAKEN BY AN EMPLOYEE INVOLVES A FOREIGN LEG. 7. THE LEARNED CIT (APPEALS) HAS NOT APPRECIATED TH E FACT THAT THIS PRACTICE HAS BEEN FOLLOWED FOR THE LAST SEVERAL YEA RS BY THE APPELLANT. THE LEARNED CIT (APPEALS) HAS STATED THAT PRINCIPLE OF RES JUDICATA IS NOT APPLICABLE TO INCOME TAX PROCEEDINGS. THE CIT ( APPEALS) HAS RELIED ON THE FOLLOWING DECISIONS: (I) INSTALLMENTS SUPPLY PRIVATE LIMITED VS. UNION O F INDIA, 1962 SC 53 (II) RADHA SWAMY SATSANG VYAS VS. CIT, 1992 AIR 377 (III) DISTRIBUTORS (BARODA) PRIVATE LIMITED VS. UNI ON OF INDIA, 1986 1 SCC 43 WHEREAS THE FACTS OF THESE CASES ARE DIFFERENT FROM THAT OF THE ITA NOS. 1309 TO 1314/BANG/2017 PAGE 6 OF 15 APPELLANT. HENCE THE CASES REFERRED ARE NOT APPLICA BLE. 8. WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO THE ABOVE, THE LEARNED CIT (APPEALS) ERRED IN COMPUTING INTEREST WITHOUT FURNISHING THE DETAILED WORKING OF THE INTEREST. 9. THE LEARNED CIT (APPEALS) ERRED IN NOT APPRECIAT ING THE SUBMISSIONS MADE BY THE BANK IN THE CORRECT PERSPEC TIVE. 10. ON SIMILAR FACTS THE LEARNED CIT (APPEALS) NAGP UR HAS HELD THAT THE TRAVEL ALLOWANCE PAID FOR THE JOURNEY IN INDIA IS WELL WITHIN THE LIMITS OF THE PROVISIONS U/S 10(5) READ WITH RULE 2 B. 11. WITH THESE AND SUCH OTHER GROUNDS THAT MAY BE U RGED AT THE TIME OF HEARING THE APPELLANT PRAYS FOR THE RELIEF SOUGH T FOR. 4. THE GROUNDS RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE FOR ASSESSMEN T YEAR 2012-13 IN ITA NO. 1311/BANG/2017 ARE AS UNDER. 1. THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED CIT (APPEALS), ON ASPEC TS AGITATED IN THIS APPEAL, IS BAD IN LAW, CONTRARY TO THE PROVISIONS O F LAW AND FACTS OF THE CASE AND WITHOUT APPRECIATION OF THE FACTS AND CIRC UMSTANCES OF THE CASE IN THEIR RIGHT PERSPECTIVE. 2. THE LEARNED CIT (APPEALS) ERRED IN PASSING AN OR DER UNDER SECTION 201(1) AND 201(1A) RAISING DEMAND OF RS. 13,87,443/ - ON THE BASIS THAT TAX WAS NOT DEDUCTED AT SOURCE ON PAYMENT OF L EAVE TRAVEL CONCESSION. 3. THE LEARNED CIT (APPEALS) ERRED IN NOT APPRECIAT ING THAT THE BENEFIT OF LEAVE TRAVEL CONCESSION IS AVAILABLE TO THE BANK 'S EMPLOYEE EVEN IN CASES WHERE THE JOURNEY UNDERTAKEN BY AN EMPLOYE E INVOLVES A FOREIGN LEG BUT THE EMPLOYEE'S DESIGNATED PLACE IS IN INDIA AND HE ACTUALLY VISITS THE PLACE AS DESIGNATED. 4. THE LEARNED CIT (APPEALS) ERRED IN MAKING THE FO LLOWING OBSERVATION, HOLDING AS UNDER: I AM IN AGREEMENT WITH THE A.O. THAT AS PER THE PR OVISIONS OF SECTION 10(5) OF THE ACT, ONLY THE REIMBURSEMENT OF EXPENSE S, WHICH ARE INCURRED ON TRAVEL OF EMPLOYEES AND HIS FAMILY TO A NY PLACE IN INDIA SUBJECT TO CERTAIN CONDITIONS, ARE EXEMPT. SINCE TH E 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 AMOUNT, THE EMPLOYER MAY NOT HAVE BEEN AWARE OF IT, BUT AT THE TIME OF SETTLEMENT OF BILLS OF LTC/ LFC, COMPLETE DETAILS ARE OBTAINED BY THE EMPLOYER AND A RE AVAILABLE TO IT. ONCE IT IS NOTICED THAT THE EMPLOYEE HAS VISITED FO REIGN COUNTRIES AND HE IS NOT ENTITLED FOR EXEMPTION FOR REIMBURSEMENT OF LTC UNDER SECTION 10(5) OF THE ACT, THE EMPLOYER OUGHT TO HAV E DEDUCTED TAX AT ITA NOS. 1309 TO 1314/BANG/2017 PAGE 7 OF 15 SOURCE TREATING THE AMOUNT AS NOT EXEMPT AND AS BEI NG PART OF THE EMPLOYEE'S TOTAL SALARY. SINCE THE ASSESSEE HAS INT ENTIONALLY NOT DEDUCTED TAX AT SOURCE ON A PAYMENT, TO WHICH THE E MPLOYEE IS NOT ENTITLED FOR ANY EXEMPTION, THE ASSESSING OFFICER H AS RIGHTLY HELD THE ASSESSEE TO BE IN DEFAULT AND RAISED THE DEMAND UND ER SECTION 201(1) AND 201(1A) OF THE ACT.' THE ABOVE OBSERVATIONS ARE WITHOUT ANY BASIS AND AR E CONTRARY TO THE FACTS OF THE CASE. THE APPELLANT OBJECTS TO THESE O BSERVATIONS/ CONCLUSIONS. 5. THE CIT (APPEALS) HAS OBSERVED IN PARA 8.1 OF HI S ORDER AS FOLLOWS: 'THUS, IN THE CASE OF GWALIOR RAYON, THE BONAFIDE O F THE EMPLOYER WAS NOT IN DOUBT WHEREAS IN THE INSTANT CASE, AS REPROD UCED IN PARA 6.7 ABOVE, THE AO HAS SPECIFICALLY BROUGHT OUT HOW THE APPELLANT WAS SEIZED OF THE MATTER THAT EMPLOYEES ARE PURPOSELY T AKING CIRCUITOUS ROUTE. THE APPELLANT HAS ALSO NOT BROUGHT ON RECORD ANY EVIDENCE WHATSOEVER TO SHOW THAT IN CONSIDERING THE AMOUNT E XEMPT U/S 10(5) OF THE I.T ACT, IT ACTED IN A BONAFIDE MANNED OR TH AT THERE WAS ANY BASIS OF ARRIVING AT THIS CONCLUSION (OF AMOUNT BEI NG EXEMPT)'. THE LEARNED CIT (APPEALS) HAS ERRED IN COMMENTING T HAT THE APPELLANT HAS NOT PROVEN' ITS BONAFIDE BY PROVIDING ANY MATERIAL. WHEREAS APPELLANT HAD PRODUCED BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER RULES AND GUIDELINES FOR LFC ISSUED BY THE ALL INDIA BANK S ASSOCIATION AND APPELLANT UNDERSTANDING WAS THAT ALL IMPORTANT MATT ERS RELATING TO BANKS HAVE BEEN CIRCULATED BY THE ASSOCIATION AND T HE APPELLANT HAD NO REASONS O BELIEVE THAT SUCH CIRCULARS WERE NOT I N ACCORDANCE WITH THE PROVISIONS OF INCOME TAX ACT AND MORE PARTICULA RLY IN THE LIGHT OF PAST PRACTICE BEING FOLLOWED BY THE BANK FOR SEVERA L YEARS AND IT WAS ACCEPTED BY THE DEPARTMENT IN COMPUTING ITS LIABILI TY TOWARDS TDS IN RELATION TO PAYMENT OF LFC AND EXEMPTION U/S 10(5). 6. WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO THE ABOVE, THE LEARNED CIT (APPEALS) ERRED IN NOT APPRECIATING THAT THE EMPLOYEE IS ENTITLED TO E XEMPTION UNDER SECTION 10(5) TO THE EXTENT OF EXPENSES INCURRED FO R TRAVEL IN INDIA WHERE THE EMPLOYEE'S DESIGNATED PLACE IS IN INDIA A ND HE ACTUALLY VISITS THE PLACE AS DESIGNATED EVEN IN CASES WHERE THE JOURNEY UNDERTAKEN BY AN EMPLOYEE INVOLVES A FOREIGN LEG. 7. THE LEARNED CIT (APPEALS) HAS NOT APPRECIATED TH E FACT THAT THIS PRACTICE HAS BEEN FOLLOWED FOR THE LAST SEVERAL YEA RS BY THE APPELLANT. THE LEARNED CIT (APPEALS) HAS STATED THAT PRINCIPLE OF RES JUDICATA IS NOT APPLICABLE TO INCOME TAX PROCEEDINGS. THE CIT ( APPEALS) HAS RELIED ON THE FOLLOWING DECISIONS: (I) INSTALLMENTS SUPPLY PRIVATE LIMITED VS. UNION O F INDIA, 1962 SC 53 (II) RADHA SWAMY SATSANG VYAS VS. CIT, 1992 AIR 377 ITA NOS. 1309 TO 1314/BANG/2017 PAGE 8 OF 15 (III) DISTRIBUTORS (BARODA) PRIVATE LIMITED VS. UNI ON OF INDIA, 1986 1 SCC 43 WHEREAS THE FACTS OF THESE CASES ARE DIFFERENT FROM THAT OF THE APPELLANT. HENCE THE CASES REFERRED ARE NOT APPLICA BLE. 8. WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO THE ABOVE, THE LEARNED CIT (APPEALS) ERRED IN COMPUTING INTEREST WITHOUT FURNISHING THE DETAILED WORKING OF THE INTEREST. 9. THE LEARNED CIT (APPEALS) ERRED IN NOT APPRECIAT ING THE SUBMISSIONS MADE BY THE BANK IN THE CORRECT PERSPEC TIVE. 10. ON SIMILAR FACTS THE LEARNED CIT (APPEALS) NAGP UR HAS HELD THAT THE TRAVEL ALLOWANCE PAID FOR THE JOURNEY IN INDIA IS WELL WITHIN THE LIMITS OF THE PROVISIONS U/S 10(5) READ WITH RULE 2 B. 11. WITH THESE AND SUCH OTHER GROUNDS THAT MAY BE U RGED AT THE TIME OF HEARING THE APPELLANT PRAYS FOR THE RELIEF SOUGH T FOR. 5. THE GROUNDS RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE FOR ASSESSMEN T YEAR 2013-14 IN ITA NO. 1312/BANG/2017 ARE AS UNDER. 1. THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED CIT (APPEALS), ON ASPEC TS AGITATED IN THIS APPEAL, IS BAD IN LAW, CONTRARY TO THE PROVISIONS O F LAW AND FACTS OF THE CASE AND WITHOUT APPRECIATION OF THE FACTS AND CIRC UMSTANCES OF THE CASE IN THEIR RIGHT PERSPECTIVE. 2. THE LEARNED CIT (APPEALS) ERRED IN PASSING AN OR DER UNDER SECTION 201(1) AND 201(1A) RAISING DEMAND OF RS. 2,14,590/- ON THE BASIS THAT TAX WAS NOT DEDUCTED AT SOURCE ON PAYMENT OF LEAVE TRAVEL CONCESSION. 3. THE LEARNED CIT (APPEALS) ERRED IN NOT APPRECIAT ING THAT THE BENEFIT OF LEAVE TRAVEL CONCESSION IS AVAILABLE TO THE BANK 'S EMPLOYEE EVEN IN CASES WHERE THE JOURNEY UNDERTAKEN BY AN EMPLOYE E INVOLVES A FOREIGN LEG BUT THE EMPLOYEE'S DESIGNATED PLACE IS IN INDIA AND HE ACTUALLY VISITS THE PLACE AS DESIGNATED. 4. THE LEARNED CIT (APPEALS) ERRED IN MAKING THE FO LLOWING OBSERVATION, HOLDING AS UNDER: I AM IN AGREEMENT WITH THE A.O. THAT AS PER THE PR OVISIONS OF SECTION 10(5) OF THE ACT, ONLY THE REIMBURSEMENT OF EXPENSE S, WHICH ARE INCURRED ON TRAVEL OF EMPLOYEES AND HIS FAMILY TO A NY PLACE IN INDIA SUBJECT TO CERTAIN CONDITIONS, ARE EXEMPT. SINCE TH E 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 AMOUNT, THE EMPLOYER MAY NOT HAVE BEEN AWARE OF IT, BUT AT THE TIME OF SETTLEMENT OF BILLS OF LTC/ LFC, ITA NOS. 1309 TO 1314/BANG/2017 PAGE 9 OF 15 COMPLETE DETAILS ARE OBTAINED BY THE EMPLOYER AND A RE AVAILABLE TO IT. ONCE IT IS NOTICED THAT THE EMPLOYEE HAS VISITED FO REIGN COUNTRIES AND HE IS NOT ENTITLED FOR EXEMPTION FOR REIMBURSEMENT OF LTC UNDER SECTION 10(5) OF THE ACT, THE EMPLOYER OUGHT TO HAV E DEDUCTED TAX AT SOURCE TREATING THE AMOUNT AS NOT EXEMPT AND AS BEI NG PART OF THE EMPLOYEE'S TOTAL SALARY. SINCE THE ASSESSEE HAS INT ENTIONALLY NOT DEDUCTED TAX AT SOURCE ON A PAYMENT, TO WHICH THE E MPLOYEE IS NOT ENTITLED FOR ANY EXEMPTION, THE ASSESSING OFFICER H AS RIGHTLY HELD THE ASSESSEE TO BE IN DEFAULT AND RAISED THE DEMAND UND ER SECTION 201(1) AND 201(1A) OF THE ACT.' THE ABOVE OBSERVATIONS ARE WITHOUT ANY BASIS AND AR E CONTRARY TO THE FACTS OF THE CASE. THE APPELLANT OBJECTS TO THESE O BSERVATIONS/ CONCLUSIONS. 5. THE CIT (APPEALS) HAS OBSERVED IN PARA 8.1 OF HI S ORDER AS FOLLOWS: 'THUS, IN THE CASE OF GWALIOR RAYON, THE BONAFIDE O F THE EMPLOYER WAS NOT IN DOUBT WHEREAS IN THE INSTANT CASE, AS REPROD UCED IN PARA 6.7 ABOVE, THE AO HAS SPECIFICALLY BROUGHT OUT HOW THE APPELLANT WAS SEIZED OF THE MATTER THAT EMPLOYEES ARE PURPOSELY T AKING CIRCUITOUS ROUTE. THE APPELLANT HAS ALSO NOT BROUGHT ON RECORD ANY EVIDENCE WHATSOEVER TO SHOW THAT IN CONSIDERING THE AMOUNT E XEMPT U/S 10(5) OF THE I.T ACT, IT ACTED IN A BONAFIDE MANNED OR TH AT THERE WAS ANY BASIS OF ARRIVING AT THIS CONCLUSION (OF AMOUNT BEI NG EXEMPT)'. THE LEARNED CIT (APPEALS) HAS ERRED IN COMMENTING T HAT THE APPELLANT HAS NOT PROVEN' ITS BONAFIDE BY PROVIDING ANY MATERIAL. WHEREAS APPELLANT HAD PRODUCED BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER RULES AND GUIDELINES FOR LFC ISSUED BY THE ALL INDIA BANK S ASSOCIATION AND APPELLANT UNDERSTANDING WAS THAT ALL IMPORTANT MATT ERS RELATING TO BANKS HAVE BEEN CIRCULATED BY THE ASSOCIATION AND T HE APPELLANT HAD NO REASONS O BELIEVE THAT SUCH CIRCULARS WERE NOT I N ACCORDANCE WITH THE PROVISIONS OF INCOME TAX ACT AND MORE PARTICULA RLY IN THE LIGHT OF PAST PRACTICE BEING FOLLOWED BY THE BANK FOR SEVERA L YEARS AND IT WAS ACCEPTED BY THE DEPARTMENT IN COMPUTING ITS LIABILI TY TOWARDS TDS IN RELATION TO PAYMENT OF LFC AND EXEMPTION U/S 10(5). 6. WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO THE ABOVE, THE LEARNED CIT (APPEALS) ERRED IN NOT APPRECIATING THAT THE EMPLOYEE IS ENTITLED TO E XEMPTION UNDER SECTION 10(5) TO THE EXTENT OF EXPENSES INCURRED FO R TRAVEL IN INDIA WHERE THE EMPLOYEE'S DESIGNATED PLACE IS IN INDIA A ND HE ACTUALLY VISITS THE PLACE AS DESIGNATED EVEN IN CASES WHERE THE JOURNEY UNDERTAKEN BY AN EMPLOYEE INVOLVES A FOREIGN LEG. 7. THE LEARNED CIT (APPEALS) HAS NOT APPRECIATED TH E FACT THAT THIS PRACTICE HAS BEEN FOLLOWED FOR THE LAST SEVERAL YEA RS BY THE APPELLANT. THE LEARNED CIT (APPEALS) HAS STATED THAT PRINCIPLE OF RES JUDICATA IS NOT APPLICABLE TO INCOME TAX PROCEEDINGS. THE CIT ( APPEALS) HAS RELIED ON THE FOLLOWING DECISIONS: ITA NOS. 1309 TO 1314/BANG/2017 PAGE 10 OF 15 (I) INSTALLMENTS SUPPLY PRIVATE LIMITED VS. UNION O F INDIA, 1962 SC 53 (II) RADHA SWAMY SATSANG VYAS VS. CIT, 1992 AIR 377 (III) DISTRIBUTORS (BARODA) PRIVATE LIMITED VS. UNI ON OF INDIA, 1986 1 SCC 43 WHEREAS THE FACTS OF THESE CASES ARE DIFFERENT FROM THAT OF THE APPELLANT. HENCE THE CASES REFERRED ARE NOT APPLICA BLE. 8. WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO THE ABOVE, THE LEARNED CIT (APPEALS) ERRED IN COMPUTING INTEREST WITHOUT FURNISHING THE DETAILED WORKING OF THE INTEREST. 9. THE LEARNED CIT (APPEALS) ERRED IN NOT APPRECIAT ING THE SUBMISSIONS MADE BY THE BANK IN THE CORRECT PERSPEC TIVE. 10. ON SIMILAR FACTS THE LEARNED CIT (APPEALS) NAGP UR HAS HELD THAT THE TRAVEL ALLOWANCE PAID FOR THE JOURNEY IN INDIA IS WELL WITHIN THE LIMITS OF THE PROVISIONS U/S 10(5) READ WITH RULE 2 B. 11. WITH THESE AND SUCH OTHER GROUNDS THAT MAY BE U RGED AT THE TIME OF HEARING THE APPELLANT PRAYS FOR THE RELIEF SOUGH T FOR. 6. THE GROUNDS RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE FOR ASSESSMEN T YEAR 2013-14 IN ITA NO. 1313/BANG/2017 ARE AS UNDER. 1. THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED CIT (APPEALS), ON ASPEC TS AGITATED IN THIS APPEAL, IS BAD IN LAW, CONTRARY TO THE PROVISIONS O F LAW AND FACTS OF THE CASE AND WITHOUT APPRECIATION OF THE FACTS AND CIRC UMSTANCES OF THE CASE IN THEIR RIGHT PERSPECTIVE. 2. THE LEARNED CIT (APPEALS) ERRED IN PASSING AN OR DER UNDER SECTION 201(1) AND 201(1A) RAISING DEMAND OF RS. 67,414/- O N THE BASIS THAT TAX WAS NOT DEDUCTED AT SOURCE ON PAYMENT OF LEAVE TRAVEL CONCESSION. 3. THE LEARNED CIT (APPEALS) ERRED IN NOT APPRECIAT ING THAT THE BENEFIT OF LEAVE TRAVEL CONCESSION IS AVAILABLE TO THE BANK 'S EMPLOYEE EVEN IN CASES WHERE THE JOURNEY UNDERTAKEN BY AN EMPLOYE E INVOLVES A FOREIGN LEG BUT THE EMPLOYEE'S DESIGNATED PLACE IS IN INDIA AND HE ACTUALLY VISITS THE PLACE AS DESIGNATED. 4. THE LEARNED CIT (APPEALS) ERRED IN MAKING THE FO LLOWING OBSERVATION, HOLDING AS UNDER: I AM IN AGREEMENT WITH THE A.O. THAT AS PER THE PR OVISIONS OF SECTION 10(5) OF THE ACT, ONLY THE REIMBURSEMENT OF EXPENSE S, WHICH ARE INCURRED ON TRAVEL OF EMPLOYEES AND HIS FAMILY TO A NY PLACE IN INDIA SUBJECT TO CERTAIN CONDITIONS, ARE EXEMPT. SINCE TH E EMPLOYEE OF THE ITA NOS. 1309 TO 1314/BANG/2017 PAGE 11 OF 15 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 AMOUNT, THE EMPLOYER MAY NOT HAVE BEEN AWARE OF IT, BUT AT THE TIME OF SETTLEMENT OF BILLS OF LTC/ LFC, COMPLETE DETAILS ARE OBTAINED BY THE EMPLOYER AND A RE AVAILABLE TO IT. ONCE IT IS NOTICED THAT THE EMPLOYEE HAS VISITED FO REIGN COUNTRIES AND HE IS NOT ENTITLED FOR EXEMPTION FOR REIMBURSEMENT OF LTC UNDER SECTION 10(5) OF THE ACT, THE EMPLOYER OUGHT TO HAV E DEDUCTED TAX AT SOURCE TREATING THE AMOUNT AS NOT EXEMPT AND AS BEI NG PART OF THE EMPLOYEE'S TOTAL SALARY. SINCE THE ASSESSEE HAS INT ENTIONALLY NOT DEDUCTED TAX AT SOURCE ON A PAYMENT, TO WHICH THE E MPLOYEE IS NOT ENTITLED FOR ANY EXEMPTION, THE ASSESSING OFFICER H AS RIGHTLY HELD THE ASSESSEE TO BE IN DEFAULT AND RAISED THE DEMAND UND ER SECTION 201(1) AND 201(1A) OF THE ACT.' THE ABOVE OBSERVATIONS ARE WITHOUT ANY BASIS AND AR E CONTRARY TO THE FACTS OF THE CASE. THE APPELLANT OBJECTS TO THESE O BSERVATIONS/ CONCLUSIONS. 5. THE CIT (APPEALS) HAS OBSERVED IN PARA 8.1 OF HI S ORDER AS FOLLOWS: 'THUS, IN THE CASE OF GWALIOR RAYON, THE BONAFIDE O F THE EMPLOYER WAS NOT IN DOUBT WHEREAS IN THE INSTANT CASE, AS REPROD UCED IN PARA 6.7 ABOVE, THE AO HAS SPECIFICALLY BROUGHT OUT HOW THE APPELLANT WAS SEIZED OF THE MATTER THAT EMPLOYEES ARE PURPOSELY T AKING CIRCUITOUS ROUTE. THE APPELLANT HAS ALSO NOT BROUGHT ON RECORD ANY EVIDENCE WHATSOEVER TO SHOW THAT IN CONSIDERING THE AMOUNT E XEMPT U/S 10(5) OF THE I.T ACT, IT ACTED IN A BONAFIDE MANNED OR TH AT THERE WAS ANY BASIS OF ARRIVING AT THIS CONCLUSION (OF AMOUNT BEI NG EXEMPT)'. THE LEARNED CIT (APPEALS) HAS ERRED IN COMMENTING T HAT THE APPELLANT HAS NOT PROVEN' ITS BONAFIDE BY PROVIDING ANY MATERIAL. WHEREAS APPELLANT HAD PRODUCED BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER RULES AND GUIDELINES FOR LFC ISSUED BY THE ALL INDIA BANK S ASSOCIATION AND APPELLANT UNDERSTANDING WAS THAT ALL IMPORTANT MATT ERS RELATING TO BANKS HAVE BEEN CIRCULATED BY THE ASSOCIATION AND T HE APPELLANT HAD NO REASONS O BELIEVE THAT SUCH CIRCULARS WERE NOT I N ACCORDANCE WITH THE PROVISIONS OF INCOME TAX ACT AND MORE PARTICULA RLY IN THE LIGHT OF PAST PRACTICE BEING FOLLOWED BY THE BANK FOR SEVERA L YEARS AND IT WAS ACCEPTED BY THE DEPARTMENT IN COMPUTING ITS LIABILI TY TOWARDS TDS IN RELATION TO PAYMENT OF LFC AND EXEMPTION U/S 10(5). 6. WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO THE ABOVE, THE LEARNED CIT (APPEALS) ERRED IN NOT APPRECIATING THAT THE EMPLOYEE IS ENTITLED TO E XEMPTION UNDER SECTION 10(5) TO THE EXTENT OF EXPENSES INCURRED FO R TRAVEL IN INDIA WHERE THE EMPLOYEE'S DESIGNATED PLACE IS IN INDIA A ND HE ACTUALLY VISITS THE PLACE AS DESIGNATED EVEN IN CASES WHERE THE JOURNEY UNDERTAKEN BY AN EMPLOYEE INVOLVES A FOREIGN LEG. 7. THE LEARNED CIT (APPEALS) HAS NOT APPRECIATED TH E FACT THAT THIS ITA NOS. 1309 TO 1314/BANG/2017 PAGE 12 OF 15 PRACTICE HAS BEEN FOLLOWED FOR THE LAST SEVERAL YEA RS BY THE APPELLANT. THE LEARNED CIT (APPEALS) HAS STATED THAT PRINCIPLE OF RES JUDICATA IS NOT APPLICABLE TO INCOME TAX PROCEEDINGS. THE CIT ( APPEALS) HAS RELIED ON THE FOLLOWING DECISIONS: (I) INSTALLMENTS SUPPLY PRIVATE LIMITED VS. UNION O F INDIA, 1962 SC 53 (II) RADHA SWAMY SATSANG VYAS VS. CIT, 1992 AIR 377 (III) DISTRIBUTORS (BARODA) PRIVATE LIMITED VS. UNI ON OF INDIA, 1986 1 SCC 43 WHEREAS THE FACTS OF THESE CASES ARE DIFFERENT FROM THAT OF THE APPELLANT. HENCE THE CASES REFERRED ARE NOT APPLICA BLE. 8. WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO THE ABOVE, THE LEARNED CIT (APPEALS) ERRED IN COMPUTING INTEREST WITHOUT FURNISHING THE DETAILED WORKING OF THE INTEREST. 9. THE LEARNED CIT (APPEALS) ERRED IN NOT APPRECIAT ING THE SUBMISSIONS MADE BY THE BANK IN THE CORRECT PERSPEC TIVE. 10. ON SIMILAR FACTS THE LEARNED CIT (APPEALS) NAGP UR HAS HELD THAT THE TRAVEL ALLOWANCE PAID FOR THE JOURNEY IN INDIA IS WELL WITHIN THE LIMITS OF THE PROVISIONS U/S 10(5) READ WITH RULE 2 B. 11. WITH THESE AND SUCH OTHER GROUNDS THAT MAY BE U RGED AT THE TIME OF HEARING THE APPELLANT PRAYS FOR THE RELIEF SOUGH T FOR. 7. THE GROUNDS RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE FOR ASSESSMEN T YEAR 2013-14 IN ITA NO. 1314/BANG/2017 ARE AS UNDER. 1. THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED CIT (APPEALS), ON ASPEC TS AGITATED IN THIS APPEAL, IS BAD IN LAW, CONTRARY TO THE PROVISIONS O F LAW AND FACTS OF THE CASE AND WITHOUT APPRECIATION OF THE FACTS AND CIRC UMSTANCES OF THE CASE IN THEIR RIGHT PERSPECTIVE. 2. THE LEARNED CIT (APPEALS) ERRED IN PASSING AN OR DER UNDER SECTION 201(1) AND 201(1A) RAISING DEMAND OF RS. 1,31,727/- ON THE BASIS THAT TAX WAS NOT DEDUCTED AT SOURCE ON PAYMENT OF LEAVE TRAVEL CONCESSION. 3. THE LEARNED CIT (APPEALS) ERRED IN NOT APPRECIAT ING THAT THE BENEFIT OF LEAVE TRAVEL CONCESSION IS AVAILABLE TO THE BANK 'S EMPLOYEE EVEN IN CASES WHERE THE JOURNEY UNDERTAKEN BY AN EMPLOYE E INVOLVES A FOREIGN LEG BUT THE EMPLOYEE'S DESIGNATED PLACE IS IN INDIA AND HE ACTUALLY VISITS THE PLACE AS DESIGNATED. 4. THE LEARNED CIT (APPEALS) ERRED IN MAKING THE FO LLOWING OBSERVATION, HOLDING AS UNDER: ITA NOS. 1309 TO 1314/BANG/2017 PAGE 13 OF 15 I AM IN AGREEMENT WITH THE A.O. THAT AS PER THE PR OVISIONS OF SECTION 10(5) OF THE ACT, ONLY THE REIMBURSEMENT OF EXPENSE S, WHICH ARE INCURRED ON TRAVEL OF EMPLOYEES AND HIS FAMILY TO A NY PLACE IN INDIA SUBJECT TO CERTAIN CONDITIONS, ARE EXEMPT. SINCE TH E 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 AMOUNT, THE EMPLOYER MAY NOT HAVE BEEN AWARE OF IT, BUT AT THE TIME OF SETTLEMENT OF BILLS OF LTC/ LFC, COMPLETE DETAILS ARE OBTAINED BY THE EMPLOYER AND A RE AVAILABLE TO IT. ONCE IT IS NOTICED THAT THE EMPLOYEE HAS VISITED FO REIGN COUNTRIES AND HE IS NOT ENTITLED FOR EXEMPTION FOR REIMBURSEMENT OF LTC UNDER SECTION 10(5) OF THE ACT, THE EMPLOYER OUGHT TO HAV E DEDUCTED TAX AT SOURCE TREATING THE AMOUNT AS NOT EXEMPT AND AS BEI NG PART OF THE EMPLOYEE'S TOTAL SALARY. SINCE THE ASSESSEE HAS INT ENTIONALLY NOT DEDUCTED TAX AT SOURCE ON A PAYMENT, TO WHICH THE E MPLOYEE IS NOT ENTITLED FOR ANY EXEMPTION, THE ASSESSING OFFICER H AS RIGHTLY HELD THE ASSESSEE TO BE IN DEFAULT AND RAISED THE DEMAND UND ER SECTION 201(1) AND 201(1A) OF THE ACT.' THE ABOVE OBSERVATIONS ARE WITHOUT ANY BASIS AND AR E CONTRARY TO THE FACTS OF THE CASE. THE APPELLANT OBJECTS TO THESE O BSERVATIONS/ CONCLUSIONS. 5. THE CIT (APPEALS) HAS OBSERVED IN PARA 8.1 OF HI S ORDER AS FOLLOWS: 'THUS, IN THE CASE OF GWALIOR RAYON, THE BONAFIDE O F THE EMPLOYER WAS NOT IN DOUBT WHEREAS IN THE INSTANT CASE, AS REPROD UCED IN PARA 6.7 ABOVE, THE AO HAS SPECIFICALLY BROUGHT OUT HOW THE APPELLANT WAS SEIZED OF THE MATTER THAT EMPLOYEES ARE PURPOSELY T AKING CIRCUITOUS ROUTE. THE APPELLANT HAS ALSO NOT BROUGHT ON RECORD ANY EVIDENCE WHATSOEVER TO SHOW THAT IN CONSIDERING THE AMOUNT E XEMPT U/S 10(5) OF THE I.T ACT, IT ACTED IN A BONAFIDE MANNED OR TH AT THERE WAS ANY BASIS OF ARRIVING AT THIS CONCLUSION (OF AMOUNT BEI NG EXEMPT)'. THE LEARNED CIT (APPEALS) HAS ERRED IN COMMENTING T HAT THE APPELLANT HAS NOT PROVEN' ITS BONAFIDE BY PROVIDING ANY MATERIAL. WHEREAS APPELLANT HAD PRODUCED BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER RULES AND GUIDELINES FOR LFC ISSUED BY THE ALL INDIA BANK S ASSOCIATION AND APPELLANT UNDERSTANDING WAS THAT ALL IMPORTANT MATT ERS RELATING TO BANKS HAVE BEEN CIRCULATED BY THE ASSOCIATION AND T HE APPELLANT HAD NO REASONS O BELIEVE THAT SUCH CIRCULARS WERE NOT I N ACCORDANCE WITH THE PROVISIONS OF INCOME TAX ACT AND MORE PARTICULA RLY IN THE LIGHT OF PAST PRACTICE BEING FOLLOWED BY THE BANK FOR SEVERA L YEARS AND IT WAS ACCEPTED BY THE DEPARTMENT IN COMPUTING ITS LIABILI TY TOWARDS TDS IN RELATION TO PAYMENT OF LFC AND EXEMPTION U/S 10(5). 6. WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO THE ABOVE, THE LEARNED CIT (APPEALS) ERRED IN NOT APPRECIATING THAT THE EMPLOYEE IS ENTITLED TO E XEMPTION UNDER SECTION 10(5) TO THE EXTENT OF EXPENSES INCURRED FO R TRAVEL IN INDIA WHERE THE EMPLOYEE'S DESIGNATED PLACE IS IN INDIA A ND HE ACTUALLY ITA NOS. 1309 TO 1314/BANG/2017 PAGE 14 OF 15 VISITS THE PLACE AS DESIGNATED EVEN IN CASES WHERE THE JOURNEY UNDERTAKEN BY AN EMPLOYEE INVOLVES A FOREIGN LEG. 7. THE LEARNED CIT (APPEALS) HAS NOT APPRECIATED TH E FACT THAT THIS PRACTICE HAS BEEN FOLLOWED FOR THE LAST SEVERAL YEA RS BY THE APPELLANT. THE LEARNED CIT (APPEALS) HAS STATED THAT PRINCIPLE OF RES JUDICATA IS NOT APPLICABLE TO INCOME TAX PROCEEDINGS. THE CIT ( APPEALS) HAS RELIED ON THE FOLLOWING DECISIONS: (I) INSTALLMENTS SUPPLY PRIVATE LIMITED VS. UNION O F INDIA, 1962 SC 53 (II) RADHA SWAMY SATSANG VYAS VS. CIT, 1992 AIR 377 (III) DISTRIBUTORS (BARODA) PRIVATE LIMITED VS. UNI ON OF INDIA, 1986 1 SCC 43 WHEREAS THE FACTS OF THESE CASES ARE DIFFERENT FROM THAT OF THE APPELLANT. HENCE THE CASES REFERRED ARE NOT APPLICA BLE. 8. WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO THE ABOVE, THE LEARNED CIT (APPEALS) ERRED IN COMPUTING INTEREST WITHOUT FURNISHING THE DETAILED WORKING OF THE INTEREST. 9. THE LEARNED CIT (APPEALS) ERRED IN NOT APPRECIAT ING THE SUBMISSIONS MADE BY THE BANK IN THE CORRECT PERSPEC TIVE. 10. ON SIMILAR FACTS THE LEARNED CIT (APPEALS) NAGP UR HAS HELD THAT THE TRAVEL ALLOWANCE PAID FOR THE JOURNEY IN INDIA IS WELL WITHIN THE LIMITS OF THE PROVISIONS U/S 10(5) READ WITH RULE 2 B. 11. WITH THESE AND SUCH OTHER GROUNDS THAT MAY BE U RGED AT THE TIME OF HEARING THE APPELLANT PRAYS FOR THE RELIEF SOUGH T FOR. 8. AT THE VERY OUTSET, IT WAS FAIRLY CONCEDED BY LD . AR OF ASSESSEE THAT THE ISSUE INVOLVED IN THESE APPEALS IS SQUARELY COVERED AGAIN ST THE ASSESSEE AND IN FAVOUR OF THE REVENUE BY TRIBUNAL ORDER RENDERED IN THE CASE OF SOME OTHER BRANCHES OF STATE BANK OF INDIA. HE SUBMITTED A CO PY OF THIS TRIBUNAL ORDER. THE LD. DR OF REVENUE SUPPORTED THE ORDER OF CIT(A) . 9. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND SIN CE THE ISSUE INVOLVED IS ADMITTEDLY COVERED AGAINST THE ASSESSEE BY THE TRIB UNAL ORDER IN THE CASE OF VARIOUS BRANCHES OF STATE BANK OF INDIA, WE DECLINE TO INTERFERE IN THE ORDER OF CIT(A) IN ALL THESE CASES. ITA NOS. 1309 TO 1314/BANG/2017 PAGE 15 OF 15 10. IN THE RESULT, ALL THESE SIX APPEALS FILED BY T HE ASSESSEE ARE DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON THE DATE MENT IONED ON THE CAPTION PAGE. SD/- SD/- (N.V. VASUDEVAN) (ARUN KUMAR GARODIA) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER BANGALORE, DATED, THE 15 TH JUNE, 2018. /MS/ COPY TO: 1. APPELLANT 4. CIT(A) 2. RESPONDENT 5. DR, ITAT, BANGALORE 3. CIT 6. GUARD FILE BY ORDER SENIOR PRIVATE SECRETARY, INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, BANGALORE.