State Bank of India, Valsad V. The Income Tax Officer(TDS), Valsad

ITA 2105/AHD/2016

• Counselvise Citation: [2018] 118 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 1910 (ITAT-SURAT)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 4 month(s) 7 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 20-12-2018
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Assessment Year: 2012-2013
• Appeal Filed On: 12-08-2016
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: ANUPMA SING ALA
• Keywords: Period of limitation; Non-deduction of tax; Reasonable cause; Benefit of exemption; Time period of passing order; TDS
• Section: 131; 27; 10; 15; 201(1)

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL SURAT BENCH ES, SURAT BEFORE: SHR I AMARJIT SINGH , ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND MS. MADHUMITA ROY , JUDICIAL MEMBER STATE BANK OF INDIA, STATION ROAD BRANCH, OPP. AVABAI HIGH SCHOOL, STATION ROAD, VALSAD - 393001 PAN: AAACS8577K (APPELLANT) VS IT O(TDS) , VALSAD (RESPONDENT) REVE NUE BY : MS. ANUPMA SING ALA , SR. D . R. ASSESSEE BY: SHRI PANKAJ GUPTA, A.R. DATE OF HEARING : 22 - 11 - 2 018 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 20 - 12 - 2 018 / ORDER P ER BE NCH : - THESE SIXTEEN APPEALS FILED BY ASSESSEE FOR A. Y. 2012 - 13 TO 2014 - 15 , ARI SE FROM ORDER OF THE CIT(A), VALSAD , IN PROCEEDINGS UNDER SECTION 201(1 ) & 201(1A) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961; IN SHORT THE ACT . 2. THESE SIXTEEN APPEALS FILED BY THE ASSES SEE ARE BASED ON IDENTICAL ISSUES AND FACTS AND THE SAME ARE SE GGREGAT ED ISSUE WISE AS UNDER. (I) THE FIRST ISSUE IN THE 1 2 CASES VIDE ITA NOS. 2105/AHD/2016 TO 2112/AHD/2016, 1660/AHD/2017, 1663/AHD/2017, 1665/AHD/2016 & 1666/AHD/2017 IS PERTAINED TO NON - DEDUCTION OF TAX BY T H E ASSESSEE ON I T A NO S . 1660 TO 1666 /AHD /2017 & 2105 TO 2113 / A HD/20 16 A SS ESSMENT YEAR 2012 - 13 TO 2014 - 15 I.T.A NOS. 1660 TO 1666/AHD/2017 & 2105 TO 2113/AHD/2016 A.Y. 2012 - 13 TO 2014 - 15 PAGE NO SBI VS. ITO 2 REIMBURSEMENT OF LTC/LFC IN THE CASES WHERE EMPLO Y EES HAVE TRAVELLED ABROAD. THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT DEDUCTED TAX BY CITING PROVISION OF SECTION 10(5) OF THE ACT. (II) THE SECOND ISSUE VIDE ITA NOS.1661 /A HD/ 2017 , IT A 1662 / AHD/ 2017 , ITA 1664 /AHD/201 7 & 2113/AHD/2016 ARE PERTAINED TO LEVY OF PENALTY U/S. 271C OF THE ACT ON FAILURE OF ASSESSEE FOR DEDUCTING TAX AT SOURCE IN RESPECT OF REIMBURSEMENT OF LTC/LFC ON FOREIGN TRAVELLING BY THE EMPLOYEES OF THE ASSESSEE AGAI NST ORDER U/S. 201(1)/201(1A) FOR NON - DEDUCTION OF TAX 3. THERE IS COMMON ISSUE IN RESPECT OF ALL THE 12 CASES ITA 2105/AHD/2016 TO 2112/AHD/2016, 1660/AHD/2017, 1663/AHD/2017, 1665/AHD/2016 & 1666/AHD/2017 FOR T REATING THE ASSESSEE IN DEFAULT U/S. 201(1)/ 201(1A) FOR NO T DEDUCTING TAX AT SOURCE ON PAYMENT OF LEAVE TRAVEL CONCESSION MADE TO THE BANK EMPLOYEES WHO HAVE TRAVELLED OUTSIDE INDIA FOR AVAILING THE LTC/LFC. SINCE ALL THESE GROUNDS OF APPEAL S PERTAINED TO THE ISSUE OF TREATING THE ASSESSEE IN DEFAULT BY PASSING THE ORDER U/S. 201(1)/201(1A), THEREFORE, FOR THE SAKE OF CONVENIENCE ALL THESE 12 APPEALS ARE BEING ADJUDICATED BY TAKING ITA NO. 210/AHD/2016 AS LEAD CASE AND ITS FINDING WILL BE APPLICABLE TO OTHER CASES. 4 . THE FACT IN BRIEF IS THAT THE ITO, TDS HAS CARRIED OUT VERIFICATION ON 26 TH FEB, 2014 FOR COMPLIANCE OF VARIOUS TDS PROVISION MAINLY ON THE BASIS OF INFORMATION RECEIVED FROM THE CIT, TDS, MUMBAI THAT THE DEDUCTOR, ASSESSEE WAS CLAIMING LFC/LTC ON OVERSEAS TRAVEL AS E XEMPT U/S. 10(5) OF THE ACT. 5. DURING THE CO U RSE OF VERIFICATION , THE STATEMENT U /S. 131 HAS BEEN RECORDED OF THE CHIEF MANAGER OF THE BANK ON 26 TH FEB, 2014 . O N THE BASIS OF VERIFICATION AND STATEMENT OF THE CHIEF MANAGER , THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS I.T.A NOS. 1660 TO 1666/AHD/2017 & 2105 TO 2113/AHD/2016 A.Y. 2012 - 13 TO 2014 - 15 PAGE NO SBI VS. ITO 3 NOTICED THAT IN THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE ALL THE EMPLOYEES HAVE PERFORMED LEAVE TRAVEL CIRCUITOUS ROUTE VIA FOREIGN COUNTRIES THEREFORE THE REIMBURSEMENT MADE BY THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT EXEMPT U /S. 10(5) OF THE ACT. ASSESS ING OFFICER HAS ALSO PLACED RELIAN CE ON THE DECISION OF ITAT CHANDIGARH BENCH IN THE CASE OF OM P RAKASH GUPTA VS. ITO WARD - 4(1) WHEREIN THE ITAT HAS HELD LTC IS EXEMPT FROM TAX ONLY WHEN THE EMPLOYEES HAS UTILIZED LTC FOR TRAVEL WITHIN INDIA. IT WAS NOTICED THAT TRAVEL PACKAGE WAS ALSO COVERED SINGAPORE AND MALASIA. IN VIEW OF THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCE, THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS REJECTED THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE FOR EXEMPTION U/S. 1 0(5) OF THE ACT. CONSEQUENTLY, THE ASSESSING OFFICER CONCLUDED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS FAILED TO DEDUCT T AX ON THE LEAVE TRAVEL CONCESSION REIMBURSED TO ITS EMPLOYEES ON FOREIGN TRAVEL PERFORMED BY THEM, THEREFORE, THE ASSESSEE WAS TREATED AS ASSESSEE IN DEFAULT . ORDER U/S. 201(1)/201(1A) WAS PASSED RAISING DEMAND OF RS. 3 , 01 , 890/ - AND INTEREST OF RS . 27 , 170 / - TOTALING TO RS. 3 , 29 , 060/ - . 6 . AGGRIEVED ASSESSEE HAS FILED APPEAL BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A). THE LD. CIT(A) HAS DISMISSED THE APPEAL STATING THAT ASSESSEE WAS UNDER OBLIGATION TO DEDUCT REIMBURSEMENT OF EXPENDITURE INCURRED BY THE ASSESSEE ON FOREIGN T R AVEL. RELEVANT PART OF DECISION OF LD. CIT(A) IS REPRODUCED AS UNDER: - 6. DECISION: I HAVE CAREFULLY CONSIDERED THE FACTS OF THE CASE AS CONTAINED IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER PASSED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER AS WELL AS THE WRITTEN SUBMISSION MADE BY A R OF THE APPELLANT DURING THE APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS. IN THIS APPEAL THE APPELLANT HAS TAKEN NINE GROUNDS OF APPEAL BUT THERE IS ONLY ONE ISSUE INVOLVED UNDER ALL THESE GROUNDS OF APPEAL. BRIEFLY STATED, THE FACTS ARE THAT THE APPELLANT BANK IS ALLOWING ITS EMPLOYEES A FACILITY OF LEAVE FARE CONCESSION I.E. LFC/LTA AND THE EXPENSES INCURRED ON TRAVELLING BY THE EMPLOYEES ARE REIMBURSED BY THE BANK. THIS REIMBURSEMENT OF AMOUNT IS CLAIMED AS EXEMPT U/S 10(5) OF THE ACT. THIS CLAIM OF THE BANK WAS REJECTED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER BECAUSE AS PER HIM THE EMPLOYEES DID NO TRAVEL DIRECTLY TO A PLACE IN INDIA BUT TRAVELLED TO THAT PLACE/DESTINATION AS CHOSEN BY THE EMPLOYEES AT THE TIME OF MAKING REQUEST TO AVAIL THE LFC/LTA THROUGH A CIRCUITOUS ROUTE VIA FOREIGN C OUNTRIES. AS PER ASSESSING OFFICER THE AMOUNT OF REIMBURSEMENT AGAINST LFC/LTA IS EXEMPT ONLY IN RESPECT OF JOURNEY PERFORMED WITHIN INDIA U/S 10(5) OF THE ACT. THE TRAVELLING OVERSEAS IS NOT EXEMPT U/S 10(5) OF THE ACT. HENCE THE APPELLANT WAS REQUIRED TO DEDUCT TAX FROM THE PAYMENT OF LFC/LTC TRAVELLING EXPENSES INVOLVING TRAVEL TO FOREIGN COUNTIES. IN THE PRESENT CASE THE EMPLOYEES HAVE TRAVELLED TO INDIAN DESTINATION NOT BY DIRECT AND SHORTEST ROUTE BUT BY CIRCUITOUS ROUTE INCLUDING OVERSEAS JOURNEY. TH E ASSESSING OFFICER RELIED UPON THE DECISION OF HON'BLE IT AT CHAN DIGARH A BENCH IN THE CASE OF OM PARKAS H GUPTA V/S ITO, WARD - 4(1), CHA NDIGARH. FURTHER THE ASSESSING OFFICER ALSO HELD THAT NOTHING IN RULE 2 B PROVIDES THE APPELLANT IS AT A LIBERTY TO CL AIM A EXEMPTION WHERE PART OF JOURNEY BEING IN INDIA. IN VIEW OF THESE FACTS THE ASSESSING OFFIC ER TREATED THE APPELLANT IN DEF AULT IN RESPECT OF TAX U/S 201(1) AND ALSO LIABLE FOR INTEREST U/S 201(L)(A) OF THE ACT. I.T.A NOS. 1660 TO 1666/AHD/2017 & 2105 TO 2113/AHD/2016 A.Y. 2012 - 13 TO 2014 - 15 PAGE NO SBI VS. ITO 4 DURING THE APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS, THE AR OF THE APPELLANT SUBMITTED THAT SECTION 10(5) OF THE ACT REQUIRES THAT THE EXEMPTION IS AVAILABLE FOR PROCEEDING ON LEAVE TO ANY PLACE IN INDIA. THE BANK HAS GRANTED THE BENEFIT OF EXEMPTION U/S 10(5) OF THE ACT TO THE EMPLOYEES ONLY IN CASES WHERE THE DE SIGNATED PLACE OF TRAVEL OF THE EMPLOYEES HAVE BEEN A PLACE IN INDIA. THE BENEFIT IS GRANTED ONLY WHEN THE EMPLOYEE ACTUALLY VISITS THE DESIGNATED PLACE IN INDIA. FURTHER IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT SECTION 10(5) OF THE ACT DOES NOT PLACE A BAR ON TRAVEL TO A FO REIGN DESTINATION DURING THE COURSE OF TRAVEL TO A PLACE IN INDIA. DETAILED GUIDE LINES HAVE BEEN FRAMED FOR THE PURPOSE OF GRANT OF EXEMPTION IN TERMS OF RULE 2 B WHICH DO NOT RESTRICT FOR OVERSEAS TRAVEL. IN NUTSHELL ALL THE CONDITIONS OF SECTION 10 (5) OF THE ACT AND RULE 2 B HAS BEEN SATISFIED. THE AR OF THE APPELLANT ALSO RELIED UPON A NUMBER OF JUDICIAL DECISIONS WHICH HAS BEEN MENTIONED IN THE WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS. I HAVE GIVEN MY CAREFUL THOUGHTS TO THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND HAVE ALSO GONE THROUGH AL L THE JUDICIAL DECISIONS RELIED UPON BY THE AR OF THE APPELLANT. I HAVE ALSO GONE THROUGH THE DECISION OF HON'BLE ITAT CHANDIGARH WHICH WAS RELIED UPON BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. IN THIS DECISION A SIMILAR ISSUE PERTAINING TO STATE BANK OF INDIA I.E., THE A PPELLANT BANK WAS INVOLVED. THE HON'BLE ITAT CHANDIGARH DECIDED THIS ISSUE AGAINST THE APPELLANT AND THE RELEVANT FINDINGS GIVEN IN THE ORDER ARE REPRODUCED BELOW: '11. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND PERUSED THE RECORD. SECTION 10(5) OF THE ACT P OSTULATES EXEMPT/ON IN RESPECT OF JOURNEY CONCESSION RECEIVED BY AN INDIVIDUAL FROM HIS EMPLOYER AND PROVIDES AS UNDER: '10(5) IN THE CASE OF AN INDIVIDUAL, THE VALUE OF ANY TRAVEL CONCESSION OR ASSISTANCE RECEIVED BY, OR DUE TO, HIM, - (A) FROM HIS EMPLO YER FOR HIMSELF AND HIS FAMILY, IN CONNECTION WITH H IS PROCEEDING ON LEAVE ANY PLACE IN I NDIA ; (B) FROM HIS EMPLOYER OR FORMER EMPLOYER FOR HIMSELF AN D HIS FAMILY, IN CONNECTION , WIT H HIS PROCEEDING TO ANY PLACE IN INDIA AFTER RETIRE MENT FROM SERVICE OR AFTER THE T ERMINATION OF HIS SERVICE, SUBJECT TO SUCH CONDITIONS AS MAY BE PRESCRIBED (INCLUDING CONDITIONS AS TO NUMBER OF JOURNEYS AND THE AMOUNT WHICH SHALL BE EXEMPT PER HEAD) LAVING REGARD TO THE TRAVEL CONCESSION OR ASSISTANCE GRANTED TO THE EMPLOYEE S OF THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT: PROVIDED THAT THE AMOUNT EXEMPT UNDER THIS CLAUSE SHALL IN NO CASE EXCEED THE AMOUNT OF EXPENSES AICTULLYJRICJ.TRRED FOR THE PURPOSE OF SUCH TRAVEL. EXPLANATION. - FOR THE PURPOSES OF THIS CLAUSE, 'FAMILY', IN RELATION TO AN IND IVIDUAL, MEANS - (I ) THE SPOUSE AND CHILDREN OF THE INDIVIDUAL; AND (II) THE PARENTS, BROTHERS AND SISTERS OF THE INDIVIDUAL OR ANY OF THEM, WHOLLY OR MAINLY DEPENDENT ON THE INDIVIDUAL; ]' 12. THE SAID SUB - SECTION PROVIDES THAT WHERE AN INDIVIDUAL HAD RECE IVED TRAVEL CONCESSION OR ASSISTANCE FROM HIS E M P I O YE R FOR PROCEEDING ON LEAVE TO AN Y PLACE IN INDIA, BOTH FOR HIMSELF AND HIS FAMILY, THEN SUCH CONCESSION RECEIVED BY THE EMPLOYEE IS NOT TAXABLE IN THE HANDS OF THE EMPLOYEE. SIMILAR EXEMPTION IS AL LOWED TO AN EMPLOYEE PROCEEDING TO ANY PLACE IN INDIA AFTER RETIREMENT OF SERVICE OR AFTER THE TERMINATION OF HIS SERVICE. THE PROVISIONS OF THE ACT ARE IN RELATION TO THE TRAVEL CONCESSION/ASSISTANCE GIVEN FOR PROCEEDING ON LEAVE TO ANY PLACE IN INDIA AND THE SAID CONCESSION IS THUS EXEMPT ONLY WHERE THE EMPLOYEE HAS UTILIZED THE TRAVEL CONCESSION FOR TRAVEL WITH IN INDIA. FURTHER UNDER RULE 2B OF THE INCOME TAX RULES THE CONDITION FOR A I LOWING EXEMPTION UNDER SECTION 10(5) OFT/TE ACT ARE LAID DOWN. THE CONDITIONS ARE IN RESPECT OF VARIOUS MODES OF TRANSPORT. HOWEVER, THE BASIC CONDITION IS THAT THE EMPLOYEE IS TO, UTILIZE THE TRAVEL CONCESSION IN CONNECTION WITH HIS PROCEEDING TO LEAVE TO ANY PLACE WITHIN INDIA, EITHER DURING THE COURSE OF EMPLOYMENT OR EVEN AFTER RETIREMENT OF SERVICE OR AFTER TERMINATION OF SERVICE. READING OF SECTION 10(5) OF THE ACT AND RULE 2 B OF THE RULES IN CONJUNCTION LAYS DOWN THE GUIDE LINES FOR CLAIMING EXEMPTION IN RELATIONS TO THE TRAVEL CONCESSION RECEIVED BY AN EMPLOYEE FR OM HIS EMPLOYER OR FORMER EMPLOYER, FOR PROCEEDING ON LEAVE TO ANY PLACE IN INDIA. THE PERSON IS TO UNDERTAKE THE JOURNEY TO ANY PLACE IN INDIA AND THERE AFTER RETURN TO THE PLACE OF EMPLOYMENT AND IS ENTITLED TO REIMBURSEMENT OF EXPENDITURE ON SUCH TRAVEL BETWEEN THE PRICE OF EMPLOYMENT AND DESTINATION IN INDIA. RULE 2B OF THE RULES FURTHER LAYS DOWN THE CONDITIONS THAT THE AMOUNT TO BE ALLOWED AS CONCESSION IS NOT TO EXCEED THE AIR ECONOMY FAIR OF THE NATIONAL CARRIER BY THE SHORTEST RO UTE TO THE DESTIN ATION IN INDIA. THE SAID CONDITION IN NO WAY PROVIDES THAT THE ASSESSEE IS AT LIBERTY TO CLAIM EXEMPTION OUT OF HIS TOTAL TICKET PACKAGE SPENT ON HIS OVERSEAS TRAVEL AND PART OF THE JOURNEY BEING WITHIN INDIA. WE FIND NO MERIT I N THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE IN THE PRESENT CASE AND WE ARE IN CONFORMITY WITH THE OBSERVATION OF THE CIT (APPEALS) IN THIS REGARD, WHICH HAS BEEN REPRODUCED BY US IN THE PARAS HEREINABOVE. IN VIEW THEREOF, WE REJECT THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE OF EXEMPTION I.T.A NOS. 1660 TO 1666/AHD/2017 & 2105 TO 2113/AHD/2016 A.Y. 2012 - 13 TO 2014 - 15 PAGE NO SBI VS. ITO 5 UNDER SECT/ON 10(5) OF THE A CT. THE GROUND OF APPEAL NO.3 RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE IS THUS DISMISSED.' SIMILARLY, THE SAME ISSUE ALSO AROSE BEFORE HON'BLE ITAT LUCKNOW BENCH 'A' IN THE CASE OF DCIT (TDS) KANPUR V/S SATE BANK OF INDIA. HERE AGAIN THE HON'BLE ITAT DECIDED THE ISSUE AGAIN ST THE APPELLANT STATE BANK OF INDIA. THE RELEVANT PORTION OF THE DECISION IS REPRODUCED BELOW: '# HAVING CAREFULLY EXAMINED THE ORDERS OF THE LOWER AUTHORITIES IN THE LIGHT OF THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND THE DOCUMENTS PLACED ON RECORD, WE FIND THAT AS PER P ROVISIONS OF SECTION 10(5) OF THE ACT, ONLY THAT REIMBURSEMENT OF TRAVEL CONCESSION OR ASSISTANCE TO AN EMPLOYEE IS EXEMPTED WHICH WAS INCURRED FOR TRAVEL OF THE INDIVIDUAL EMPLOYEE OR HIS FAMILY MEMBERS TO ANY PLACE IN INDIA. NOWHERE IN THIS CLAUSE IT HAS BEEN STATED THAT EVEN IF THE EMPLOYEE TRAVELS TO FOREIGN COUNTRIES, EXEMPTION WOULD BE LIMITED TO THE EXPENDITURE INCURRED TO THE LAST DESTINATION IN INDIA. FOR THE SAKE OF REFERENCE, WE EXTRACT THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 10(5) OF THE ACT AS UNDER: - 10. IN COMPUTING THE TOTAL INCOME OF A PREVIOUS YEAR OF ANY PERSON, ANY INCOME FALLING WITHIN ANY OF THE FOLLOWING CLAUSES SHALL NOT BE INCLUDED [(5) IN THE CASE OF AN INDIVIDUAL, THE VALUE OF ANY TRAVEL CONCESSION OR ASSISTANCE RECEIVED BY, OR DUE TO, HIM, (A ) FROM HIS EMPLOYER FOR HIMSELF AND H IS FAMILY, IN CONNECTION WITH HI S PROCEEDING ON LEAVE TO ANY PLACE IN INDIA ; (B) FROM HIS EMPLOYER OR FORMER EMPLOYER FOR HIMSELF AND HIS FAMILY, IN CONNECTION WITH HIS PROCEEDING TO ANY PLACE IN INDIA AFTER RETIREMEN T FROM SERVICE OR AFTER THE TERMINATION OF HIS SERVICE, SUBJECT TO SUCH CONDITIONS AS MAY BE PRESCRIBED (INCLUDING CONDITIONS AS TO NUMBER OF JOURNEYS AND THE AMOUNT WHICH SHALL TAXPUNDIT.ORG : - 6 - : BE EXEMPT PER HEAD) HAVING REGARD TO THE TRAVEL CONCESSION OR ASSISTANCE GRANTED TO THE EMPLOYEES OF THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT:' 9. ON PERUSAL OF THIS SECTION, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THIS PROVISION WAS INTRODUCED IN ORDER TO MOTIVATE THE EMPLOYEES AND ALSO TO ENCOURAGE TOURISM IN INDIA AND, THEREFORE, THE REIMBURSE MENT OF LTC/LFC W AS EXEMPTED, BUT THERE W AS NO INTENTION OF THE LEGISLATURE TO ALLOW THE EMPLOYEE TO TRAVEL ABROAD UNDER THE GARB OF BENE FIT OF LTC AVAILABLE BY VIRTUE O F SECTION 10( 5)OFTHEACT. UNDISPUTEDLY, IN THE INSTANT CASE THE EMPLOYEES OF THE ASSES SEE HAVE TRAV ELLED OUTSIDE INDIA IN DIFFERENT FOREIGN COUNTRIES AND RAISED CLAIM OF THEIR EXPENDITURE INCURRED THEREIN. NO DOUBT, THE ASSESSEE MAY NOT BE AWARE WITH THE ULTIMATE PLAN OF TRAVEL OF ITS EMPLOYEES, BUT AT THE TIME OF SETTLEMENT OF THE L TC/LFC BILLS, COMPLETE FACTS ARE AVAILABLE BEFORE THE ASSESSEE AS TO WHERE THE EMPLOYEES HA VE TRAVELLED, FOR WHICH HE HAS R AISED THE CLAIM; MEANING THEREBY THE ASSESSEE WAS AWARE OF THE FACT THAT ITS EMPLOYEES H AVE TRAVELLED IN FOREIGN COUNTRIES, FOR WHICH HE IS NOT ENTITLED FOR EXEMPTION UNDER SECTION 10(5) OF THE ACT. THUS, THE PAYMENT MADE TO ITS EMPLOYEES IS CHARGEABLE TO TAX AND IN THAT SITUATION, THE ASSESSEE IS UNDER OBLIGATION TO DEDUCT TDS ON SUCH PAYMENT, BUT THE ASSESSEE DID NOT DO SO FOR THE REASONS BE ST KNOWN TO IT. WE HAVE ALSO CAREFULLY EXAMINED THE CIRCULAR PLACED BY THE ID. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE DURING THE COURSE OF HEARING, IN WHICH A REFERENCE WAS MADE TO THE INTERIM ORDER OF THE HON'BLE MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED 16.2.2015. THROUGH THE INTERIM O RDER, THE HON'BLE MADRAS HIGH COURT HAS PERMITTED THE B ANKERS NOT TO DEDUCT TDS ON OR A FTER 16.2.2015 ON THE AMOUNT PAID/REIMBURSED TO THE EMPLOYEES OF THE BANK IN RESPECT OF LTC/HTC AVAILED WHERE THE EMPLOYEE HAS VISITED A FOREIGN CITY/COUNTRY, IRRESPECTI VE OF THE FACT WHETHER THE LFC BILLS WERE SUBMITTED AND PAID PRIOR TO 16.2.2015; MEANING THEREBY THIS CIRCULAR WAS PASSED CONSEQUENT TO THE INTERIM TAXPUNDIT.ORG : - 7 - : ORDER OF THE HON'BLE MADRAS HIGH COURT. BUT IN THE PRESENT CASE, TH E JOURNEY WAS UNDERTA KEN IN THE YEAR 2012 AND THE BILLS WERE SETTLED DURING THAT YEAR; MEANING THEREBY AT THE RELEVANT POINT OF TIME WHEN THE BILLS WERE SETTLED, THERE WAS NO ORDER OF THE HON'BLE MADRAS HIGH COURT AND THE ASSESSEE WAS UNDER OBLIGATION TO DEDUCT TDS ON THE REIM BURSEMENT OF EXPENDITURE INCURRED BY THE ASSESSEE ON FOREIGN TRAVEL. IN THE LIGHT OF THESE FACTS, WE ARE OF THE CONSIDERED OPINION THAT THE REVENUE HAS RIGHTLY HELD THE ASSESSEE TO BE IN DEFAULT, AS THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT DEDUCTED TDS INTENTIONALLY ON THE RE IMBURSEMENT OF EXPENDITURE INCURRED ON LTC/LFC. MOREOVER, THE ID. CIT (A) HAS DIRECTED THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO RECALCULATE THE LIABILITY OF TDS AT 10%. WE, THEREFORE, FIND NO INFIRMITY IN THE ORDER OF THE ID. CIT(A) AND WE CONFIRM THE SAME* 10. IN THE RES ULT, APPEALS OF THE ASSESSEE ARE DISMISSED. ' THE ABOVE TWO DECISIONS ARE DIRECTLY ON THE ISSUE INVOLVED IN THE PRESENT APPEAL AND THAT TOO IN THE CASE OF STATE BANK OF INDIA WHO HAPPENED TO BE AN APPELLANT IN THE PRESENT APPEAL ALSO. RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWIN G THESE DECISIONS AND AS PER FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THE IS SUE INVOLVED IN ALL THE GROUNDS OF THE APPELLANT IS DECIDED AGAINST THE APPELLANT AND THE ORDER OF THE IS UPHELD. THEREFORE, ALL THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL OF THE APPELLANT ARE DISMISSED 7 . IT IS BROUGHT TO OUR NOTICE THAT IN CASE OF THREE APPEALS OF THE ASSESSEE VIDE ITA 2105/AHD/2016, 2106/AHD/2016 AND 1660/AHD/2017 ORDER PASSED U/S. I.T.A NOS. 1660 TO 1666/AHD/2017 & 2105 TO 2113/AHD/2016 A.Y. 2012 - 13 TO 2014 - 15 PAGE NO SBI VS. ITO 6 201(1)/201(1A) ARE BARRED BY LIMITATION, THEREFORE, THE ORDER PASSED BY TH E ASSESSING OFFICER IS NULL AND VOID. 8 . W E HAVE NOTICED THE LIMITATION FOR INITIATING PROCEEDINGS U/S. 201(1) OF THE ACT GOVERNED BY SECTION 201(3)(I) OF THE ACT AS IT STOOD AT THE RELEVANT TIME. IN THIS CONNECTION, WE HAVE SEEN THAT THE FINANCE ACT, 2009 HAS INTRODUCED SUB - SECTION ( 3 ) TO SECTION 201 PROVIDING LIMITATION PERIOD OF TWO YEARS FOR PASSING THE ORDER U/S. 201(1) FROM THE END OF THE FINANCIAL YEAR IN WHICH ST ATEMENT OF TDS IS FILED BY THE DEDUCTOR AND IN A C ASE WHERE NO STATEMENT IS FILED, T HE LIMITATION WAS EXTEND ED TO BEFORE EXPIRY O F FOUR YEARS FROM THE END OF THE FINANCIAL YEAR IN WHICH THE PAYMENT WAS MADE OR CREDIT GIVEN THE AFORESAID AMENDMENT WAS MADE EFFECTIVE FROM 1 ST APRIL, 2010. SUBSEQUENTLY, BY FINANCE ACT, 2012 SUB - SECTION ( 3 ) OF SECTION 201 WAS AGAIN AMENDED WITH RETROSP ECTIVE EFFECT FROM 1 ST APRIL, 2010. THE AFORESAID AMENDED PROVISION READS AS UNDER: - (3) NO ORDER SHALL BE MADE UNDER SUB - SECTION (1) DEEMING A PROVISION TO BE AN ASSESSEE IN DEFAULT FOR FAILURE TO DEDUCT THE WHOL E OR ANY PART OF TAX FROM A PERSON RESID ENT IN INDIA AT ANY TIME AFTER EXPIRY OF . (I) TWO YEAR FROM THE END OF FINANCIAL YEAR IN WHICH THE STATEMENT IS FILED IN A CASE WHERE THE STATEMENT REFERRED TO IN SECTION 200 HAS BEEN FILED. (II) SIX YEARS FROM THE END OF FINANCIAL YEAR IN WHICH PAYM ENT IS MADE OR CREDIT IS GIVEN IN ANY OTHER CASE. THE AFORESAID SUB - SECTION 3 OF SECTION 201 WAS AGAIN AMENDED BY FINANCE ACT, 2014 W.E.F. 1 ST OCTOBER, 20 1 4 BY SUBSTITUTING THE EARLIER PROVISION WITH THE FOLLOWING : - ' ( 3 ) NO ORDER SHALL B E MADE UNDER SUB - SECTION ( 1 ) DEEMING A PERSON TO BE AN ASSESSEE IN DEFAULT FOR FAILURE TO DEDUCT THE WHOLE OR ANY PART OF TAX FROM A PERSON RESIDENT IN INDIA AT ANY TIME AFTER THE EXPIRY OF SEVEN YEARS FROM THE END OF FINANCIAL YEAR IN WHICH PAYMENT IS MADE OR CREDIT IS GIVEN. IN THIS CONNECTION, WE HAVE ALSO NOTICED THAT CO - ORDINATE BENCH OF THE ITAT , SURAT IN ITA NOS. 881 I.T.A NOS. 1660 TO 1666/AHD/2017 & 2105 TO 2113/AHD/2016 A.Y. 2012 - 13 TO 2014 - 15 PAGE NO SBI VS. ITO 7 TO 883/AHD/2016 SRT DATED 20/03/2018 HA S DECIDED THE IDENTICAL MATTER THE IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSE ON THE SIMILAR ISSUE AND FACTS. RELEVANT PART OF THE DECISION OF ITAT IS REPRODUCED AS UNDER: - WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE FACTS AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL ON RECORD. THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 201 (3) OF THE ACT AS INSERTED BY FINANCE ACT 2009 ARE AS UNDER: 25[(3) NO ORDER SHALL BE MADE UNDER SUB - SECTION ( 1) DEEMING A PERSON TO BE AN ASSESSEE IN DEFAULT FOR FAILURE TO DEDUCT THE WHOLE OR ANY PART OF THE TAX FROM A PERSON RESIDENT IN INDIA, AT ANY TIME AFTER THE EXPIRY OF - (I) TWO YEARS FROM THE END OF THE FINANCIAL YEAR IN WHICH THE STATEMENT IS FILED IN A CASE WHERE THE STATEMENT REFERRED TO IN SECTION 200 HAS BEEN FILED; (II) (III) 26 [SIX] YEARS FROM THE END OF THE FINANCIAL YEAR IN WHICH PAYMENT IS MADE OR CREDIT IS GIVEN, IN ANY OTHER CASE : PROVIDED THAT SUCH ORDER FOR A FINANCIAL YEAR COMMENCING ON OR BEFORE THE 1 DAY OF APRIL, 2007 MAY BE PASSED AT ANY TIME ON OR BEFORE THE 3 1 ! ' DAY OF MARCH, 20 IT.' 12. THE PERUSAL OF THE ABOVE PROVISION SHOWS THAT LIMITATION IN INITIATING PROCEEDINGS U/S.201(L) OF THE ACT WOULD THEREFORE, BE GOVERNED BY SECTION 201(3)(I) OF THE ACT AS IT STOOD AT THE RELEVANT TIME WHEREIN IT PROVIDED FOR A PERIOD OF LIMITATION OF TWO YEARS FROM THE END OF THE FINANCIAL YEAR IN WHICH THE STATEMENT WAS FILED AS REFERRED UNDER SECTION 200. THEIR LIMITATION FOR INITIATING ACTION U/S. 201(L) OF THE ACT FOR THE STATEMENT FILED ON 04.09.2010 HAS ELAPSED ON 31.03.201 3 WHEREAS THE TIME LIMITATION FOR INITIATING ACTION U/S.201(L) OF THE ACT FOR THE STATEMENT FILED DURING PERIOD FROM 23.10.2010 TO 15.05.2012 WAS ELAPSED ON 31.03.2014. WE MAY ALSO OBSERVE THAT THE AMENDMENT IN SECTION 201 OF THE ACT AS AMENDED BY FINANCE ACT NO.2 (2014) CAME INTO FORCE W.E.F. 20.05.201 2. THEREFORE, THE IMPUGNED NOTICE AND ORDER U/S.201 (1) IN RESPECT OF THE APPEALS UNDER CONSIDERATION HAVE BEEN CLEARLY BARRED BY LIMITATION, THEREFORE, SAME CANNOT BE SUSTAINED IN THE LIGHT OF THE DECISION IN CASE OF M/S.TATA TELE SERVICES VS. UNION OF' INDIA (2016) 66 TAXMANN.COM 157 (GUJARAT) AND M/S.TROIKAA PHARMACEUTICALS LTD. VS. UNION OF INDIA (2016) 68 TAXMANN.COM 229 (GU JARAT). IT MAY ALSO BE NOTED THAT AMENDMENT MADE TO SECTION 201 (3) BY FINANCE ACT 2014 IS PROSPECTIVE IN NATURE AND IS APPLICABLE FROM 01.10.2014 WHEREIN, THE TIME TO PASS ORDER U/S.201(1) WAS INCREASED TO SEVEN YEARS FROM THE END OF THE FINANCIAL YEAR IN WHICH THE PAYMENT IS MADE OR CREDIT IS GIVEN. THEREFORE, THE SAID AMENDMENT I S NOT APPLICABLE FOR THOSE ASSESSMENT YEARS FOR WHICH TIME LIMIT TO PASS THE ORDER U/S.201(1) IS EXPIRED 01.10.2014. SINCE IN THE CASE OF ASSESSEE, THE TIME LIMIT FOR PASSING T HE ORDER U/S.201(1) OF THE ACT HAS EXPIRED ON 31.03.201 3 AND 31.02.2014 RESPECTIVELY I.E. 01.1 0.2014. THEREFORE, THE IMPUGNED ORDER UNDER APPEAL IS CLEARLY BARRED BY LIMITATION. ACCORDINGLY, THE ORDER PASSED U/S.201(LA) OF THE ACT FOR THE IMPUGNED ASSESS MENT YEARS UNDER CONSIDERATION ARE THEREFORE QUASHED ON THIS LEGAL GROUND. SINCE THE ASSESSEE SUCCEEDS ON LEGAL GROUND, THEREFORE, OTHER GROUND OF APPEAL BECOME ACADEMIC IN NATURE AND INFRUCTUOUS, HENCE, NOT REQUIRE OUR ADJUDICATION. AFTER CONSIDE RING THE DECISION OF CO - ORDINATE BENCH AND THE AMENDED PROVISION OF SECTION 201(3) OF THE ACT AS ELABORATED SUPRA IN THIS ORDER WE RESTORE THIS ISSUE TO THE FILE OF LD.CIT(A) FOR ADJUDICATING A FRESH AFTER EXAMINATION OF THE STATEMENT FILED U/S 200 OF T HE ACT IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE AMENDED PROVISION OF SECTION 201(3) OF THE ACT AS ELABORATED SUPRA IN THIS ORDER. THEREFORE , ITA I.T.A NOS. 1660 TO 1666/AHD/2017 & 2105 TO 2113/AHD/2016 A.Y. 2012 - 13 TO 2014 - 15 PAGE NO SBI VS. ITO 8 2105/AHD/2016, 2106/AHD/2016 AND 1660/AHD/2017 OF THE ASSESSEE ARE ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. 9 . IN RESPECT OF OTHE R NINE CASES WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTION AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL ON RECORD CAREFULLY. THE CIT(A) HAS UPHELD THAT ORDER PASSED BY THE ITO, TDS U/S. 201(1) AND 201(1A) OF NON - DEDUCTION OF TAX ON THE GROUND THAT ASSESSEE WAS NOT EXEMPT FROM THE TAX U NDER THE PROVISION OF SECTION 10(5) OF THE ACT IN RESPECT OF LFC/LTA TRAVELLED OVERSEAS TO THE DESTINATION IN INDIA. THE ASSESSEE WAS OF THE VIEW THAT IN CASE AN EMPLOYEE TRAVELLED OUTSIDE INDIA DURING THE COURSE OF HIS VISIT TO A PLACE IN INDIA REIMBURSE MENT IS MADE TO HIM FOR HIS ENTIRE JOURNEY BY CIRCUITOUS ROUTE PROVIDED BY THE REIMBURSEMENT MADE TO HIM IS LIMITED TO THE ACTUAL FARE/HIRE CHARGES FOR THE ENTIRE JOURNEY OR THE COST OF FARE TO HIS HOME TOWN/DESIGNATED PLACE, BY THE SHORTEST ROUTE, BY THE ENTITLED CLASS WHICHEVER IS LOWER. AFTER PERUSAL OF THE PROVISION OF SECTION 10(5) OF THE ACT, WE OBSERVED THAT THE SAID PROVISION WAS INTRODUCED IN ORDER TO MOTIVATE THE EMPLOYEES AND ALSO ENCOURAGE TOURISM IN INDIA, AND THEREFORE, THE REIMBURSEMENT ON LT C/LFC WAS EXEMPTED BUT THERE WAS NOT ANY SUCH PROVISION WHICH PROVIDE EXEMPTION TO THE EMPLOYEES FOR TRAVELLING ABROAD TO GET BENEFIT OF LTC BY VIRTUE OF SECTION 10(5) OF THE ACT. WE CONSIDER THAT ON IDENTICAL FACTS AND SIMILAR ISSUES HAVE BEEN ADJUDICAT ED BY THE ITAT LUCKNOW IN THE CASE OF STATE BANK OF INDIA V. DCIT(TDS) VI DE 67 TAXMANN.COM 81. THE RELEVANT PART OF THIS DECISION IS REPRODUCED AS UNDER: - '8. HAVING CAREFULLY EXAMINED THE ORDERS OF THE LOWER AUTHORITIES IN THE LIGHT OF THE RIVAL SUBMISSIO NS AND THE DOCUMENTS PLACED ON RECORD, WE FIND THAT AS PER PROVISIONS OF SECTION 10 ( 5 ) OF THE ACT, ONLY THAT REIMBURSEMENT OF TRAVEL CONCESSION OR ASSISTANCE TO AN EMPLOYEE IS EXEMPTED WHICH WAS INCURRED FOR TRAVEL OF THE INDIVIDUAL EMPLOYEE OR HIS FAMILY MEMBERS TO ANY PLACE IN INDIA. NOWHERE IN THIS CLAUSE IT HAS BEEN STATED THAT EVEN IF THE EMPLOYEE TRAVELS TO FOREIGN COUNTRIES, EXEMPTION WOULD BE LIMITED TO THE EXPENDITURE INCURRED TO THE LAST DESTINATION IN INDIA. FOR THE SAKE OF REFERENCE, WE EXTRACT THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 10 ( 5 ) OF THE ACT AS UNDER: 10 . IN COMPUTING THE TOTAL INCOME OF A PREVIOUS YEAR OF ANY PERSON, ANY INCOME FALLING WITHIN ANY OF THE FOLLOWING CLAUSES SHALL NOT BE INCLUDED [( 5 ) IN THE CASE OF AN INDIVIDUAL, THE VALUE OF ANY TRAV EL CONCESSION OR ASSISTANCE RECEIVED BY, OR DUE TO, HIM, I.T.A NOS. 1660 TO 1666/AHD/2017 & 2105 TO 2113/AHD/2016 A.Y. 2012 - 13 TO 2014 - 15 PAGE NO SBI VS. ITO 9 ( A ) FROM HIS EMPLOYER FOR HIMSELF AND HIS FAMILY, IN CONNECTION WITH HIS PROCEEDING ON LEAVE TO ANY PLACE IN INDIA ; ( B ) FROM HIS EMPLOYER OR FORMER EMPLOYER FOR HIMSELF AND HIS FAMILY, IN CONN ECTION WITH HIS PROCEEDING TO ANY PLACE IN INDIA AFTER RETIREMENT FROM SERVICE OR AFTER THE TERMINATION OF HIS SERVICE, SUBJECT TO SUCH CONDITIONS AS MAY BE PRESCRIBED (INCLUDING CONDITIONS AS TO NUMBER OF JOURNEYS AND THE AMOUNT WHICH SHALL BE EXEMPT PER HEAD) HAVING REGARD TO THE TRAVEL CONCESSION OR ASSISTANCE GRANTED TO THE EMPLOYEES OF THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT: 9. ON PERUSAL OF THIS SECTION , WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THIS PROVISION WAS INTRODUCED IN ORDER TO MOTIVATE THE EMPLOYEES AND ALSO TO ENCOURAGE TO URISM IN INDIA AND, THEREFORE, THE REIMBURSEMENT OF LTC /LFC WAS EXEMPTED, BUT THERE WAS NO INTENTION OF THE LEGISLATURE TO ALLOW THE EMPLOYEES TO TRAVEL ABROAD UNDER THE GARB OF BENEFIT OF LTC AVAILABLE BY VIRTUE OF SECTION 10 ( 5 ) OF THE ACT. UNDISPUTEDLY, IN THE INSTANT CASE THE EMPLOYEES OF THE ASSESSEE HAVE TRAVELLED OUTSIDE INDIA IN DIFFERENT FOREIGN COUNTRIES AND RAISED CLAIM OF THEIR EXPENDITURE INCURRED THEREIN. NO DOUBT, THE ASSESSEE MAY NOT BE AWARE WITH THE ULTIMATE PLAN OF TRAVEL OF ITS EMPLOYEES, BUT AT THE TIME OF SETTLEMENT OF THE LTC /LFC BILLS, COMPLETE FACTS ARE AVAILABLE BEFORE THE ASSESSEE AS TO WHERE THE EMPLOYEES HAVE TRAVELLED, FOR WHICH HE HAS RAISED THE CLAIM; MEANING THEREBY THE ASSESSEE WAS AWARE OF THE FACT THAT ITS EMPLOYEES HAVE TR AVELLED IN FOREIGN COUNTRIES, FOR WHICH HE IS NOT ENTITLED FOR EXEMPTION UNDER SECTION 10 ( 5 ) OF THE ACT. THUS, THE PAYMENT MADE TO ITS EMPLOYEES IS CHARGEABLE TO TAX AND IN THAT SITUATION, THE ASSESSEE IS UNDER OBLIGATION TO DEDUCT TDS ON SUCH PAYMENT, BUT THE ASSESSEE DID NOT DO SO FOR THE REASONS BEST KNOWN TO IT. WE HAVE ALSO CAREFULLY EXAMINED THE CIRCULAR PLACED BY THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE DURING THE COURSE OF HEARING, IN WHICH A REFERENCE WAS MADE TO THE INTERIM ORDER OF THE HON'BLE MADRAS HIG H COURT DATED 16.2.2015. THROUGH THE INTERIM ORDER, THE HON'BLE MADRAS HIGH COURT HAS PERMITTED THE BANKERS NOT TO DEDUCT TDS ON OR AFTER 16.2.2015 ON THE AMOUNT PAID/REIMBURSED TO THE EMPLOYEES OF THE BANK IN RESPECT OF LTC /HTC AVAILED WHERE THE EMPLOYEE HAS VISITED A FOREIGN CITY/COUNTRY, IRRESPECTIVE OF THE FACT WHETHER THE LFC BILLS WERE SUBMITTED AND PAID PRIOR TO 16.2.2015; MEANING THEREBY THIS CIRCULAR WAS PASSED CONSEQUENT TO THE INTERIM ORDER OF THE HON'BLE MADRAS HIGH COURT. BUT IN THE PRESENT CAS E, THE JOURNEY WAS UNDERTAKEN IN THE YEAR 2012 AND THE BILLS WERE SETTLED DURING THAT YEAR; MEANING THEREBY AT THE RELEVANT POINT OF TIME WHEN THE BILLS WERE SETTLED, THERE WAS NO ORDER OF THE HON'BLE MADRAS HIGH COURT AND THE ASSESSEE WAS UNDER OBLIGATION TO DEDUCT TDS ON THE REIMBURSEMENT OF EXPENDITURE INCURRED BY THE ASSESSEE ON FOREIGN TRAVEL. IN THE LIGHT OF THESE FACTS, WE ARE OF THE CONSIDERED OPINION THAT THE REVENUE HAS RIGHTLY HELD THE ASSESSEE TO BE IN DEFAULT, AS THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT DEDUCTED T DS INTENTIONALLY ON THE REIMBURSEMENT OF EXPENDITURE INCURRED ON LTC /LFC. MOREOVER, THE LD. CIT(A) HAS DIRECTED THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO RECALCULATE THE LIABILITY OF TDS AT 10 %. WE, THEREFORE, FIND NO INFIRMITY IN THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A) AND WE CONFIRM THE SAME. 10 . IN THE RESULT, APPEALS OF THE ASSESSEE ARE DISMISSED.' IN THE LIGHT OF THE ABOVE FACTS, CIRCUMSTANCES AND LEGAL FINDINGS, WE CONSIDER THAT ASSESSEE IS NOT ENTITLED FOR EXEMPT U/S. 10(5) OF THE ACT, THEREFORE, WE DO NOT FIND ANY MERIT IN TH E APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE. WE OBSERVED THAT THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE FOR EXEMPTION IS WITHOUT LEGAL BASIS AND ASSESSEE HAS FAILED TO PROVE THAT HOW SUCH FOREIGN TRAVEL EXPENSES WOULD COME WITHIN AMBIT OF I.T.A NOS. 1660 TO 1666/AHD/2017 & 2105 TO 2113/AHD/2016 A.Y. 2012 - 13 TO 2014 - 15 PAGE NO SBI VS. ITO 10 SECTION 10(5) OF THE ACT TAKING INTO CONSIDERATION THE ABOVE JUDICIAL VIEWS AND DETAILED FINDING OF LD. CIT(A), WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THE DECISION OF LD. CIT(A) IS JUSTIFIED AND NO INTERFERENCE IS REQUIRED . THEREFORE, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISSED. LEVY OF PENALTY U/S. 271C 1 0 . THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED FOUR APPEAL VIDE ITA 1 6 61 /A/2017 , 1662/A/2017, 1664/AHD/2017 AND 2113/AHD/2013 AGAINST THE DECISION OF LD. CIT(A) IN SUSTAINING THE PENALTY LEVIED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOR TREATING THE ASSESSEE IN DEFAULT FOR NOT DEDUCTING THE TAX AS PER OR DER PASSED U/S. 201(1) & 201(1A) OF THE ACT. AS THE FACTS IN ALL T HESE CASES ARE SIMILAR AS DISCUSSED SUPRA IN THIS ORDER THEREFORE FOR THE SAKE OF CONVENIENCE THESE FOUR APPEAL ARE ADJUDICATED BY TAKING ITA NO 1164/AHD AS THE LEAD CASE AND ITS FINDING WILL BE APPLICABLE TO THE OTHER THREE CASES . THE JOINT CIT HAS PASSED ORDER U/S. 271C OF THE ACT ON 28 TH SEP, 2015 STATING THAT ASSESSEE HAS COMMITTED DEFAULT BY NOT DEDUCTING TAX ON THE AMOUNT REIMBURSED FOR LTC/LFC OF RS. 5 , 94 , 324/ - FOR TRAVE L L ED OUTSI DE INDIA. HE HAS STATED THAT ORDER U/S. 201(1) AND 201(1A) OF THE ACT IN THE CASE O F THE ASSESSEE WAS PASSED BY ITO TDS VALSAD ON 13 TH JAN, 2015 TREATING THE ASSESSEE IN DEFAULT FOR NON - DEDUCTION OF T A X FR O M THE PAYMENT MADE FOR LTC/LFC ON VISITING ABROA D . DURING T HE COURS E OF PENALTY PROCEEDINGS THE JOINT CIT HAS STATED THAT ASSESSEE HAS FAILED TO FURNISH ANY SATISFACTORY REASON/EXPLANATION FOR NOT DEDUCTING TAX, THEREFORE, HE HAS LEVIED PENALTY OF RS. 1 , 70 , 220/ - U/S. 271C OF THE ACT. 11 . AGGRIEVED ASS ESSEE HAS FILED APPEAL BEFORE T HE LD. CIT(A). THE LD. CIT(A) HAS SUSTAINED THE PENALTY LEVIED BY THE JOINT CIT ON THE GROUND THAT SECTION 10(5) R.W.S. 2(B) NO WAY PROVIDES THAT ASSESSEE IS AT LIBERTY TO CLAIM EXEMPTION OUT OF HIS TOTAL PACKAGE SPENT ON OVERSEAS TRAVEL AND PART OF JOURNEY WITHIN INDIA. I.T.A NOS. 1660 TO 1666/AHD/2017 & 2105 TO 2113/AHD/2016 A.Y. 2012 - 13 TO 2014 - 15 PAGE NO SBI VS. ITO 11 12 . WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTION AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL ON RECORD CAREFULLY. THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS LEVIED THE AFORESAID PENALTY FOR NON - DEDUCTING OF TAX ON FOREIGN COMPONENT OF LFC/LTC WHI CH WAS NOT EXEMPT U/S. 10(5) OF THE ACT. DURING THE COURSE OF PENALTY PROCEEDINGS, THE ASSESSEE HAS FAILED TO FILE ANY EXPLANATION REGARDING NON - DEDUCTION OF TAX FROM THE AMOUNT REIMBURSED IN RESPECT OF FOREIGN COMPENSATION OF LFC/LTC. HOWEVER, DURING TH E COURSE OF APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS BEFORE LD. CIT(A) THE ASSESSEE FILED DETAILED SUBMISSION THAT THE BANK WAS UNDER BONA FIDE BELIEF THAT WHERE THE JOURNEY UNDERTAKEN BY AN EMPLOYEE INVOLVES FOREIGN BUT THE DESTINATION IS IN INDIA THE EMPLOYEE IS ENTITLED TO EXEMPTION U/S. 10(5) OF THE ACT. THE ASSESSEE HAS REFERRED TO THE ADMINISTRATIVE AND OPERATING GUIDELINE ISSUED BY THE INDIAN BANK S ASSOCIATION I.E. IBA LETTER NOS. PLI/SET/25 DATED 18 TH SEP, 1982 AND CIR/HR & R/2012 - 13/665/F/6264 DATED 12 TH JULY, 2 012. THE ASSESSEE HAS RETREATED THE SIMILAR SUBMISSION AS SUBMITTED BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND RELATED TO THE PROCEEDINGS U/S. 201(1) AND 201(1A). AFTER PERUSAL OF THE ABOVE FACTS AND MATERIAL ON RECORD WE OBSERVE PROVISION OF SECTION 201(1) AND 20 1(1A) WERE RIGHTLY ENVISAGED AS THE ASSESSEE WAS IN DEFAULT IN NOT DEDUCTING TAX AS EXEMPTION U/S. 10(5) ARE NOT AVAILABLE ON REIMBURSEMENT OF EXPENDITURE ON LTC/LFC AS IF THE EMPLOYEES TRAVEL TO FOREIGN COUNTRY. W E CONSIDER THAT PENALTY LEVIABLE U/S. 27 1C CAN BE WAIVED OFF IN CASE THE ASSESSEE OR THE PERSON, AS THE CASE MAY BE, PROVES THE REASONABLE CAUSE FOR EXAMPLE THE REASON FOR FAILURE TO APPLY WITH THE REQUISITE PROVISION UNDER WHICH HE WAS LIABLE TO DEDUCT AT SOURCE. FURTHER, WE HAVE NOTICED THAT SECTION 201 AND 271C ARE TWO INDEPENDENT AND SEPARATE PROCEEDINGS A T THE TIME OF IMPOSING PENALTY IT IS REQUIRED TO EXAMINE THE ASSESSEE S EXPLANATION WITH REGARD TO REASONABLE CAUSE FOR FAILURE TO DEDUCT TAX AT SOURCE AS ELABORATE ABOVE, WE OBSERVE THAT THERE WAS A REASONABLE CAUSE AS UNDER THE CIRCUMSTANCES CITED ABOVE IT BECOMES DEBATABLE ISSUE FOR THE ASSESSEEE TO DEDUCT TAX OR NOT TO DEDUCT TAX. WE CONSIDER THAT THERE WAS A BONA FIDE CAUSE FOR NOT DEDUCTING TAX AT SOURCE UNDER THE ABOVE CIRCUMSTANCES , THEREFORE, LEVYING OF PENALTY U/S. 271C IS NOT JUSTIFIED. THEREFORE , W E DELETE THE I.T.A NOS. 1660 TO 1666/AHD/2017 & 2105 TO 2113/AHD/2016 A.Y. 2012 - 13 TO 2014 - 15 PAGE NO SBI VS. ITO 12 PENALTY U/S. 271C IN THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE IN RESPECT OF ITA NO. 1661/AHD/ 2017 , 1662/A HD /2017,1664/AHD/2017 AND 2113/AHD/2013. 13 . IN THE RESULT , APPEAL ITA NOS. 16 61, 1662, 1664 /AHD/2017 & 2113/AHD/201 6 ARE ALLOWED. APPEAL ITA NOS. 1660/AHD/2017 , 2105 & 2106/AHD/2016 ARE ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPO SES AND THE REMAINING APPEAL ITA NOS. 2107/AHD/2016 TO 2112/AHD/2016, ITA 1660/AHD/2017, ITA 1663/AHD/2017, ITA 1665/A HD/2017 TO 1666/AHD/2017 ARE DISMISSED. ORDER PR ONOUNCED IN THE OPEN C OURT ON 20 - 12 - 201 8 SD/ - SD/ - ( MADHUMITA ROY ) ( AMARJIT SINGH ) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AHMEDABAD : DATED 20 /12 /2018 / COPY OF ORDER FORWARDED TO: - 1. ASSESSEE 2. REVENUE 3. CONCERNED CIT 4. CIT (A) 5. DR, ITAT, AHMEDABAD 6. GUARD FILE. BY ORDER/ , / ,