M/s. State Bank Of India, Bangalore V. Additional Commissioner Of Income Tax, TDS Range-3, Bangalore

ITA 2524/BANG/2019

• Counselvise Citation: [2020] 111 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 4203 (ITAT-BANGALORE)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 month(s) 15 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 28-02-2020
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Assessment Year: 2012-2013
• Appeal Filed On: 13-12-2019
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: PRIYADARSHI MISRA
• Assessee Lawyers: MURALIDHARA H
• Keywords: Question of law; Reasonable cause; Corroborative evidences; TDS; Set aside
• Section: 271(1)(c); 273B; 133A; 201(1); 201; 192

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL C BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI N.V VASUDEVAN, VICE PRESIDNET AND SHRI B.R BASKARAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO.2524/BANG/2019 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2012-13 STATE BANK OF INDIA, NO.22, J.C ROAD, BANGALORE CITY BRANCH, BENGALURU-560 002. PAN BLRS 04942 D VS. THE ACIT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME- TAX, TDS, RANGE-3, BENGALURU-560 032. APPELLANT RESPONDENT ASSESSEE BY : SHRI MURALIDHARA H, C.A REVENUE BY : SHRI PRIYADARSHI MISRA, JCIT (DR) DATE OF HEARING : 19.02.2020 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 28.02.2020 O R D E R PER B.R BASKARAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER:- THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAIN ST THE ORDER DATED 31/10/2019 PASSED BY LD CIT(A) -10, BENGALURU AND IT RELATES TO ASST. YEAR 2012-13. 2. THE ASSESSEE IS AGGRIEVED BY THE DECISION OF LD CIT(A) IN CONFIRMING THE PENALTY LEVIED BY THE AO U/S 271C OF THE ACT. 3. WE HEARD THE PARTIES AND PERUSED THE RECORD. TH E ASSESSEE IS A BANKING INSTITUTION. A SURVEY U/S 133A OF THE ACT WAS CONDUCTED IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE IN ORDER TO VERIFY COM PLIANCE OF TDS ITA NO.2524/BANG/2019 PAGE 2 OF 11 PROVISIONS. IT WAS NOTICED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS P ROVIDED LTC FACILITY TO ITS EMPLOYEES AND SOME OF THE EMPLOYEES HAVE UNDERTAKEN FOREIGN TRAVEL BY AVAILING LTC FACILITY. THE EXEMPTION GRANTED U/S 10(5) OF THE ACT WAS AVAILABLE ONLY TO TRAVEL UNDERTAKEN WITHIN INDIA. IT WAS NOTICED THAT THE ASSESSEE HER EIN HAS EXTENDED EXEMPTION U/S 10(5) OF THE ACT IN RESPECT OF TRAVEL UNDERTAKEN BY THE EMPLOYEES TO FOREIGN DESTINATION ALSO. 4. SINCE THE TRAVEL UNDERTAKEN OUTSIDE INDIA IS NOT ELIGIBLE FOR EXEMPTION U/S 10(5) OF THE ACT, THE SURVEY OFFICIAL S HELD THAT ASSESSEE SHOULD HAVE DEDUCTED TDS ON THE LTC AMOUNT ALSO WITHOUT GRANTING EXEMPTION U/S 10(5) OF THE ACT. S INCE THERE WAS DEFAULT ON THE PART OF THE ASSESSEE IN NOT DEDUCTIN G TDS FOR PAYMENTS MADE TOWARDS FOREIGN TRAVEL, AN ORDER U/S 201(1) WAS PASSED IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE. SUBSEQUENTLY PENALTY ORDER U/S 271C OF THE ACT WAS PASSED LEVYING A PENALTY OF RS.2,56,835/-. THE LD CIT(A) ALSO CONFIRMED THE PENALTY SO LEVIED AND HENCE THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED THIS APPEAL BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL. 5. AT THE TIME OF HEARING THE LD AR PLACED HIS RELI ANCE ON THE ORDER DATED 18/11/2019 PASSED BY THE TRIBUNAL IN IT A NO.118/BANG/2019 SBI, GIGANI BRANCH AND OTHERS AND SUBMITTED THAT, ON AN IDENTICAL SET OF FACTS, THE CO-ORDINATE BENCH OF TRIBUNAL HAS DELETED THE PENALTY LEVIED U/S 271C OF THE ACT. HE SUBMITTED THAT THE TRIBUNAL, IN THE ABOVE SAID CASE, HAS FOLL OWED THE DECISION RENDERED BY ANOTHER COORDINATE BENCH IN THE CASE OF SYNDICATE BANK (ITA NO.651 TO 656/BANG/2019 DATED 19/7/2019. ACCORDINGLY HE PRAYED DELETION OF IMPUGNED PENALTY. ITA NO.2524/BANG/2019 PAGE 3 OF 11 6. THE LD DR DID NOT CONTROVERT THE FACTUAL ASPECTS PRESENTED BY LD AR. HOWEVER, HE SUPPORTED THE ORDER PASSED BY L D CIT(A). 7. WE HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND PERUSED THE R ECORD. WE NOTICED THAT THE ISSUE UNDER CONSIDERATION IS SQUAR ELY COVERED BY THE ORDER PASSED BY THE COORDINATE BENCH IN THE HAN DS OF STATE BANK OF INDIA AND SYNDICATE BANK (REFERRED SUPRA). FOR THE SAKE OF CONVENIENCE WE EXTRACT BELOW THE ORDER PASSED BY TH E COORDINATE BENCH IN THE CASE OF STATE BANK OF INDIA (REFERRED SUPRA). 5. WE HEARD RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PERUSED MATERIAL ON RECORD. PRIMA FACIE, THE SOLE DISPUTED ISSUE IS IN RESPECT OF PENALTY LEVIED U/S 271C OF THE ACT FOR NON-DEDUCTIO N OF TAX AT SOURCE ON LTC. THE ASSESSEE-BANK HAS FAILED TO DEDUCT TDS BUT IN PROCEEDINGS U/S 201 OF THE ACT, T HE ASSESSEE HAS ACCEPTED THE CLAIM AND PAID THE AMOUNT S. THE FACT THAT NON-DEDUCTION OF TDS HAS COME OUT IN THE SURVEY OPERATIONS U/S 133A OF THE ACT. WE FOUND THA T THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT DEDUCTED TDS AND EXPLAINED REASONABLE CAUSE IN THE PENALTY PROCEEDINGS AND THE ASSESSEE'S ACTION IS NOT WANTON BUT ON A BONA FIDE BELIEF. WE FOUND THE CO-ORDINATE BENCH OF TRIBUNAL IN THE C ASE OF SYNDICATE BANK VS. ACIT IN ITA NOS.651 TO 56/BANG/ 2019 DATED 19/07/2019 HAS DELETED THE PENALTY U/S 271C OF THE ACT AND HAS OBSERVED AT PARAS.11 TO 14 WHICH READ AS UNDER: ITA NO.2524/BANG/2019 PAGE 4 OF 11 '11. THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT WHEN THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT ADMITS AN APPEAL AGAINS T THE ORDER IN QUANTUM PROCEEDINGS, NO PENALTY CAN BE LEVIED ON THE ASSESSEE. IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT WHEN THE HIGH COURT ADMITS SUBSTANTIAL QUESTION OF LAW ON AN ADDITION, IT BECOMES APPARENT THAT THE ADDITION IS CERTAINLY DEBATABLE. IN SUCH CIRCUMSTANCES NO PENAL TY CAN BE LEVIED U/S 271C'. IN THIS REGARD THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE PLACED RELIANCE ON THE DECISIONVF THE HON'BLE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT V. ANKITA ELECTRONICS PVT. LTD. 379 ITR 50 ( KAR) WHEREIN IT WAS HELD THAT THE ADMISSION OF SUBSTANTI AL QUESTION OF LAW BY THE HIGH COURT LENDS CREDENCE TO THE BONA . FIDES OF THE ASSESSEE IN HIS ACTION AND HENCE NO PENALTY CAN BE IMPOSED ON SUCH ADDITIONS/DEFAULTS. HE ALSO PLACED RELIANCE ON A DECISION OF THE HON 'BLE ITAT JAIPUR BENCH IN THE CASE OF STATE BANK OF INDIA VS. ACIT (2019) 101 TAXMANN.COM 61 (JAIPUR-TRIB.) WHEREIN ON IDENTICAL DEFAULT OF NON DEDUCTION OF TAX AT SOURCE ON PERQUISITE NOT EXEMPT U/S.10(5) OF THE ACT AND IMPO SITION OF PENALTY FOR SUCH FAILURE U/S.271C OF THE ACT, TH E ITAT JAIPUR DELETED PENALTY IMPOSED U/S.271C OF THE ACT, OBSERVING AS FOLLOWS:- '10. WE ALSO REFER TO HON'BLE SUPREME COURT DECISIO NS IN CASE OF CIT V. I.T.I. LTD. (2009) 183 TAXMAN 219 (S C) AND CIT V. LARSEN & TOUBRO LTD. [2009] 181 TAXMAN 71 (S C) WHEREIN IT WAS HELD THAT THE BENEFICIARY OF EXEMPTI ON UNDER SECTION 10(5) IS AN INDIVIDUAL EMPLOYEE. THERE IS N O CIRCULAR OF CENTRAL BOARD OF DIRECT TAXES (CBDT) REQUIRING T HE EMPLOYER UNDER SECTION 192 TO COLLECT AND EXAMINE T HE SUPPORTING EVIDENCE TO THE DECLARATION TO BE SUBMIT TED BY AN EMPLOYEE(S). THEREFORE, IT WAS HELD THAT AN ASSE SSEE- EMPLOYER IS UNDER NO STATUTORY OBLIGATION UNDER THE INCOME- TAX ACT, 1961, AND/OR THE RULES TO COLLECT EVIDENCE TO SHOW THAT ITS EMPLOYEE(S) HAD ACTUALLY UTILIZED THE AMOU NT(S) PAID TOWARDS LEAVE' TRAVEL CONCESSION(S)/CONVEYANCE ALLO WANCE. 11. WE THUS FIND THAT THERE IS NOTHING SPECIFIC WHICH H AS BEEN PROVIDED BY CBDT IN ITS CIRCULAR ISSUED UNDER SECTION ITA NO.2524/BANG/2019 PAGE 5 OF 11 192 FOR THE RELEVANT FINANCIAL YEAR. WHAT HAS BEEN REITERATED IS ADHERENCE TO THE PROVISIONS AS CONTAI NED IN SECTION 10(5) READ WITH RULE 2B. SIMILARLY, THE HON 'BLE SUPREME COURT HAS ALSO HELD THAT AN ASSESSEE EMPLOY ER IS UNDER NO STATUTORY OBLIGATION UNDER THE INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961, AND/OR THE RULES TO COLLECT EVIDENCE TO SHOW THAT ITS EMPLOYEES HAD ACTUALLY UTILIZED THE AMOUNT PAID TOW ARDS LEAVE TRAVEL CONCESSION. EVEN THOUGH THE SAME IS NO T REQUIRED AS PER DECISION REFERRED SUPRA. IN THE INS TANT CASE, THE ASSESSEE BANK HAS BEEN DILIGENT, AND HAS COLLEC TED AND BROUGHT ON RECORD EVIDENCE TO SHOW THAT ITS EMPLOYE ES HAD ACTUALLY UTILIZED THE AMOUNT PAID TOWARDS LEAVE TRA VEL CONCESSION. AT THE SAME TIME, IN TERMS OF ADHERENCE TO THE PROVISIONS AS CONTAINED IN SECTION 10(5) READ WITH RULE 2B, WE FIND THAT THE ASSESSEE BANK HAS ALLOWED EXEMPTION TO ALL ITS EMPLOYEES WHO HAVE SUBMITTED LFC CLAIM. THE REVENUE HAS NOT DISPUTED THE LFC CLAIM IN RESPECT OF THESE EMPLOYEES EXCEPT IN RESPE CT OF 12 EMPLOYEES. THESE 12 EMPLOYEES, WHO HAVE TRAVELLED TO FOREIGN COUNTRIES AS PART OF THEIR TRA VEL ITINERARY WITH DESIGNATED PLACE OF TRAVEL IN INDIA, AND IN RESPECT OF WHICH THEY HAVE SUBMITTED THEIR LFC CLAIM, HAS BEEN DISPUTED BY THE REVENUE AS NOT ELIGIBLE FOR EXEMPTION UNDER SECTION 10(5) IN RESPE CT OF AMOUNT REIMBURSED TOWARDS FOREIGN LEG OF THEIR TRAV EL. THE EXPLANATION OF THE ASSESSEE BANK IS THAT WHILE CALCULATING THE TAX LIABILITY OF ITS EMPLOYEES, THE FIGURE OF LFC WAS ALWAYS EXEMPTED AND THIS RULE WAS BEING FOLLOWED SINCE MANY YEARS, BEING IN A NATURE OF THU MB RULE AND TDS EXEMPTION OF LFC WAS THUS ALLOWED ALMOST MECHANICALLY YEAR AFTER YEAR. TO OUR MIND, I T IS IMPORTANT TO BE CONSISTENT BUT AT THE SAME TIME, ON E NEEDS TO BE MINDFUL OF WHAT BEEN SUBMITTED BY THE EMPLOYEES TOWARDS THEIR LFC CLAIMS. IT APPEARS THAT THE ASSESSEE BANK HAS LOOKED AT THESE 12 EMPLOYEES' CLAIM BROADLY, AS IN OTHER CASES, IN TERMS OF ACTUA L TRAVEL BEING UNDERTAKEN, THE DESIGNATED PLACE BEING IN INDIA AND THE AMOUNT OF CLAIM NOT EXCEEDING THE ECONOMY FARE OF THE NATIONAL CARRIER BY THE SHORTES T ROUTE TO THE PLACE OF DESTINATION. HOWEVER, THE ITA NO.2524/BANG/2019 PAGE 6 OF 11 REVENUE'S CASE IS THAT WHAT THE ASSESSEE BANK HAS FAILED TO CONSIDER IS THAT THE TRAVEL PLAN INCLUDES THE FOREIGN LEG OF TRAVEL AND CORRESPONDING TRAVEL EXPE NSES WHICH IS NOT ELIGIBLE FOR EXEMPTION UNDER SECTION 1 0(5) OF THE ACT. HOWEVER, THE ASSESSEE'S BANK EXPLANATIO N TO THIS EFFECT IS THAT SECTION 10(5) AND RULE 2B DOESN 'T PLACE A BAR ON TRAVEL TO A FOREIGN DESTINATION DURI NG THE COURSE OF TRAVEL TO A PLACE IN INDIA AND THERE IS N OTHING EXPLICIT PROVIDED THEREIN TO PROHIBIT SUCH TRAVEL I N ORDER TO DENY THE EXEMPTION. HAVING CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND FACTS ON RECORD, WE ARE OF THE OPIN ION THAT THE ASSESSEE BANK HAS UNDERTAKEN REASONABLE STEPS IN TERMS OF VERIFYING THE ASSESSEE'S CLAIM TO WARDS THEIR LFC CLAIMS AND IS AWARE OF EMPLOYEES TRAVELLI NG TO FOREIGN COUNTRIES AS PART OF THEIR TRAVEL ITINER ARY BUT AT THE SAME TIME, THERE IS AN ERROR OF JUDGMENT ON PART OF THE ASSESSEE BANK IN UNDERSTANDING AND APPLYING THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 10(5) OF THE ACT. THEREFO RE, WE ARE UNABLE TO ACCEPT THE REVENUE'S CONTENTION THAT THE ASSESSEE BANK HAS NOT DEDUCTED THE TAX INTENTIONALL Y, FULLY KNOWING THAT THE LFC IS APPLICABLE FOR TRAVEL IN INDIA ONLY AND NO FOREIGN TRAVEL IS ALLOWABLE AS IT IS A CASE OF ERROR OF JUDGMENT AND NO MALAFIDE CAN BE ASSUMED ON PART OF THE BANK. FURTHER,NOTHING HAS BE EN BROUGHT ON RECORD WHICH IN ANY WAYS SUGGEST CONNIVANCE ON PART OF THE ASSESSEE BANK OR FORGED CLAIMS SUBMITTED BY THE EMPLOYEES AND WHICH HAS BEE N DISCOVERED BY THE REVENUE DURING THE COURSE OF ITS EXAMINATION. AS FAIRLY SUBMITTED BY THE ASSESSEE BA NK, WHILE CALCULATING THE ESTIMATED TAX LIABILITY OF IT S EMPLOYEES, IT ALWAYS CONSIDER LFC CLAIM AS EXEMPT UNDER SECTION 10(5)ANDTHE SAME POSITION, BEING FOLL OWED AND ACCEPTED CONSISTENTLY IN THE PAST YEARS, WAS FO LLOWED IN THE CURRENT FINANCIAL YEAR AS WELL. HOWEVER, FOR THE FIRST TIME, AFTER THE SURVEY BY THE TAX DEPARTMENT, THIS ISSUE AROSE FOR CONSIDERATION AND AFTER THEJUDGMENT OF TH E TRIBUNAL, THE MATTER GOT CLARIFIED AND THE ASSESSEE BANK HAS DULY COMPLIED AND DEPOSITED THE OUTSTANDING DEM AND ALONG WITH INTEREST AND HAS TAKEN CORRECTIVE STEPS IN SUBSEQUENT YEARS AS WELL. ITA NO.2524/BANG/2019 PAGE 7 OF 11 13. IN LIGHT OF ABOVE DISCUSSIONS AND IN THE ENTIRE TY OF FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, WE ARE OF THE CONSID ERED VIEW THAT THERE WAS REASONABLE CAUSE IN TERMS OF SE CTION 273B OF THE ACT FOR NOT DEDUCTING TAX BY THE ASSESS EE BANK. IN THE RESULT, THE PENALTY'SO LEVIED UNDER SE CTION 271C IS HEREBY DIRECTED TO BE DELETED.' 12. THE LEARNED DR RELIED ON THE ORDER OF C1T(A) AND FURTHER DREW OUR ATTENTION TO A DECISION OF 1TAT BA NGALORE BENCH IN THE CASE OF ANOTHER BRANCH OF THE ASSESSEE IN ITA NO.532 TO 536/BANG/2019 ORDER DATED 12.7.2019, WHEREIN THIS TRIBUNAL REMANDED THE QUESTION OF IMPOSITION OF PENALTY TO THE CIT(A) FOR FRESH CONSI DERATION TO SEE PARITY OF FACTS BETWEEN THE CASE OF THE ASSE SSEE AND THE DECISION OF ITAT JAIPUR BENCH IN THE CASE O F STATE BANK OF INDIA (SUPRA). WE HAVE CAREFULLY CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS . IT IS UNDISPUTED THAT AS AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE TRIB UNAL HOLDING THE ASSESSEE TO BE IN DEFAULT FOR NON DEDUC TION OF TAX AT SOURCE, THE ASSESSEE HAS PREFERRED APPEAL BE FORE THE HON'BLE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT AND THE QUESTION WHETHER THE ASSESSEE IS GUILTY OF NON DEDUCTION OF TAX AT SOURCE OR NOT IS TO BE DECIDED IN SUCH APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS. IN THIS BACKGROUND OF FACTS, THE QUEST ION IS WHETHER PENALTY CAN BE IMPOSED ON THE ASSESSEE U/S.271C OF THE ACT. THE HON 'BLE KARNATAKA HIGH CO URT IN THE CASE OF ANKITA ELECTRONICS PVT.LTD. (SUPRA) HAD AN OCCASION TO DEAL WITH IDENTICAL ISSUE AND THE COURT HELD AS FOLLOWS:- '6. WHILE DISMISSING THE APPEAL, THE TRIBUNAL HAS OBSERVED THAT THE ADDITIONS IN RESPECT OF WHICH PEN ALTY UNDER SECTION 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT WAS LEVIED, HAVE BEEN ADMITTED BY THE HIGH COURT FOR CONSIDERATION AND TH US FOUND THAT THE ADDITIONS MADE WERE DEBATABLE AND WO ULD LEAD CREDENCE TO THE BONAFIDES OF THE ASSESSEE. IT THUS HELD THAT THE MATTER OF IMPOSING PENALTY UNDER SECT ION 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT, WAS NOT EXIGIBLE IN THE CASE ON HAND. ITA NO.2524/BANG/2019 PAGE 8 OF 11 7. THE TRIBUNAL PLACED RELIANCE ON DECISION OF THE 'TA T, MUMBAI IN THE CASE OF NAYAN BUILDERS & DEVELOPERS ( P.) LTD. V. ITO [IT APPEAL NO. 2379/MUM/2009, DATED 18- 3- 2011], WHICH HAD ALSO HELD THAT 'THE ADMISSION OF SUBSTANTIAL QUESTIONS OF LAW BY THE HIGH COURT LEND S CREDENCE TO THE BONA FIDES OF THE ASSESSEE IN CLAIM ING DEDUCTION. ONCE IT TURNS OUT THAT THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE COULD HAVE BEEN CONSIDERED FOR DEDUCTION AS PER A P ERSON PROPERLY INSTRUCTED IN LAW AND IS NOT COMPLETELY DE BARRED AT ALL, THE MERE FACT OF CONFIRMATION OF DISALLOWAN CE WOULD NOT PER SE LEAD TO THE IMPOSITION OF PENALTY.' 8. THE ASSESSEE IN THE PRESENT CASE HAD DISCLOSED ALL THE MATERIALS ON WHICH IT WAS CLAIMING DEDUCTION. THE M ATTER AS TO WHETHER THE DEDUCTION WAS TO BE GIVEN OR NOT, WA S TAKEN UP BY THE REVENUE AUTHORITIES AND IT WAS HELD THAT CERTAIN DEDUCTIONS CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE WERE TO BE DISAL LOWED. IT IS NOT DISPUTED THAT THE QUESTIONS REGARDING THE DISALLOWANCE OF THE DEDUCTIONS CLAIMED BY THE ASSES SEE IS UNDER CONSIDERATION BY THE HIGH COURT, AS THE APPEA L FILED BY THE ASSESSEE HAS BEEN ADMITTED, ON THE SUBSTANTIAL QUESTIONS OF LAW WHICH HAVE BEEN REPRODUCED HEREINA BOVE. 9. THE MERE ADMISSION OF THE APPEAL BY THE HIGH COU RT ON THE SUBSTANTIAL QUESTIONS OF LAW AS HAVE BEEN QUOTE D ABOVE, WOULD MAKE IT APPARENT THAT THE ADDITIONS MA DE WERE DEBATABLE. THE TRIBUNAL HAS THUS RIGHTLY HELD THAT THE ADMISSION OF SUBSTANTIAL QUESTIONS OF LAW BY TH E HIGH COURT LEADS CREDENCE TO THE BONA FIDE OF THE ASSESS EE AND THEREFORE, THE PENALTY IS NOT EXIGIBLE UNDER SECTIO N 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT. MERELY BECAUSE THE CLAIM OF T HE ASSESSEE HAS BEEN REJECTED BY THE REVENUE AUTHORITI ES WOULD NOT MAKE THE ASSESSEE LIABLE FOR PENALTY.' 14. IN THE LIGHT OF THE AFORESAID DECISION QF THE H ON 'HLE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT LET) , OF PENALTY U/S.271C OF THE ACT, IN THE GIVEN FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, CANNOT HE SUSTAINED AND THE SAME IS DIRECTED TO BE DELETED.' ITA NO.2524/BANG/2019 PAGE 9 OF 11 RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING RATIO OF THE CO-ORDINATE BEN CH DECISION, WE HOLD THAT THERE IS A REASONABLE CAUSE IN THE PRESENT CASE. HENCE, PENALTY U/S 271C IS NOT SUSTAINABLE. ACCORDINGLY, WE DIRECT THE AO TO DELET E THE PENALTY AND ALLOW THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE . 8. SINCE THE FACTS ARE IDENTICAL, FOLLOWING THE ORD ER PASSED BY THE COORDINATE BENCH, WE HOLD THAT THERE IS A REASONABL E CAUSE ON THE PART OF THE ASSESSEE IN NOT DEDUCTING TDS ON THE LT C PAYMENTS MADE TOWARDS FOREIGN TRAVEL. ACCORDINGLY WE HOLD T HAT PENALTY U/S 271C IS NOT SUSTAINABLE. ACCORDINGLY WE SET ASIDE THE ORDER PASSED BY THE LD CIT(A) AND DIRECT THE AO TO DELETE THE PE NALTY LEVIED U/S 271C OF THE ACT FOR THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION. 9. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSES SEE IS ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 28 TH FEBRUARY 2020. SD/- (N.V VASUDEVAN) VICE PRESIDENT SD/- (B.R BASKARAN) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER BANGALORE, DATED, 28 TH FEBRUARY, 2019. / VMS / ITA NO.2524/BANG/2019 PAGE 10 OF 11 COPY TO: 1. THE APPLICANT 2. THE RESPONDENT 3. THE CIT 4. THE CIT(A) 5. THE DR, ITAT, BANGALORE. 6. GUARD FILE BY ORDER ASST. REGISTRAR, ITAT, BANGALORE ITA NO.2524/BANG/2019 PAGE 11 OF 11 1. DATE OF DICTATION 2. DATE ON WHICH THE TYPED DRAFT IS PLACED BEFORE THE DICTATING MEMBER . 3. DATE ON WHICH THE APPROVED DRAFT COMES TO SR.P.S .. 4. DATE ON WHICH THE FAIR ORDER IS PLACED BEFORE THE DICTATING MEMBER .. 5. DATE ON WHICH THE FAIR ORDER COMES BACK TO THE S R. P.S. .. 6. DATE OF UPLOADING THE ORDER ON WEBSITE.. 7. IF NOT UPLOADED, FURNISH THE REASON FOR DOING SO .. 8. DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO THE BENCH CLERK .. 9. DATE ON WHICH ORDER GOES FOR XEROX & ENDORSEMENT 10. DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO THE HEAD CLERK . 11. THE DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO THE ASSISTANT REGISTRAR FOR SIGNATURE ON THE ORDER . 12. THE DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO DISPATCH SEC TION FOR DISPATCH OF THE TRIBUNAL ORDER . 13. DATE OF DESPATCH OF ORDER. ..