State Bank of India , Bangalore V. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax ( TDS), Circle-3(1) , Bangalore

ITA 317/BANG/2024

• Counselvise Citation: [2024] 101 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 6243 (ITAT-BANGALORE)
• Duration Of Justice: 4 month(s) 1 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 27-06-2024
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Next Hearing Date: 19-06-2024
• Assessment Year: 2016-2017
• Appeal Filed On: 25-02-2024
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Question of law; Non-deduction of tax; TDS
• Section: 133A; 201(1); 201; 192; 13

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B” BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI LAXMI PRASAD SAHU, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI KESHAV DUBEY, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No.317/Bang/2024 Assessment year : 2016-17 State Bank of India, Local Head Office – Bangalore, No.56, St. Marks Road, Bangalore – 560 001. TAN : BLRS00572F Vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, TDS Circle 3(1), Bangalore – 560 032. APPELLANT RESPONDENT Appellant by : Shri Raghavendra Chakravarthy, CA Respondent by : Shri Subramanian S., Jt.CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru. Date of hearing : 20.06.2024 Date of Pronouncement : 28.06.2024 O R D E R Per Laxmi Prasad Sahu, Accountant Member This appeal is filed by the assessee against the order dated 27.12.2023 of the Addl./JCIT(Appeals), Prayagraj for the AY 2015-16. 2. The brief facts of the case are that a survey u/s. 133A of the Act was conducted in the business premises of State Bank of India, Local Head Office on 26.12.2023. During the course of survey proceedings, it was noticed that the deductor provided the benefit of exemption u/s. 10(5) of the Act towards the reimbursement of Leave ITA No.317/Bang/2024 Page 2 of 15 Travel Concession (LTC) to the employees for travel outside India. Accordingly, order was passed raising demand u/s. 201(1) & 201(1A) of the Act for default in deducting tax as per the provisions of section 192(1) of the Act. It was noticed that SBI has filed appeal before various appellate fora and appeals have traversed upto Supreme Cout. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of State Bank of India v. ACIT in C.A. No.8181 of 2022 dated 04.11.2022 reported in [2022] 144 taxmann.com 131 (SC) has held as under:- “ .......... LTC is for travel within India, from one place in India to another place in India.” (para 13) “.... in view of the provisions of the Act, the moment employees undertake travel with a foreign leg, it is not a travel within India and hence not covered under the provisions of section 10(5) of the Act.” (para 14) “A foreign travel also frustrates the basic purpose of LTC. The basic objective of the LTC scheme was to familiarise a civil servant or a Government employee to gain some perspective of Indian culture by traveling in this vast country. It is for this reason that the 6th Pay Commission rejected the demand of paying cash compensation in lieu of LTC and also rejected the demand of foreign travel in its report dated March, 2008” (para 15).” “ .......... The appellant cannot claim ignorance about the travel plans of its employees as during settlement of LTC Bills the complete facts are available before the assessee about the details of their employees' travels. ........... the assessee employer therefore ought to have applied his mind and deducted tax at source as it was his statutory duty, under section 192(1) of the Act. (para 16) 3. From the above judgment, the AO noticed that the Hon’ble Supreme Court upheld the order of Assessing Officer holding the State ITA No.317/Bang/2024 Page 3 of 15 Bank of India to be an assessee in default in allowing the exemption claimed at the time of tax deduction at source u/s. 192 of the Act. Based on the information received from SBI, Mumbai the AO initiated proceedings u/s 201 in the assessee’s case allowing LTC for foreign travel and issued show cause notice to the assessee as to why it should not be treated as an assessee in default on account of short deduction. Accordingly the assessee provided details and the AO observed that employees of SBI have travelled within India to different places and also travelled outside India as per para 5.1 of the assessment order. The assessee also submitted that the deductor should not be held as an assessee in default in the light of interim order dated 16.02.2015 of the Hon’ble High Court of Madras in WP No.11991/2014 staying the operation of Bank’s Circular relating to withdrawal of LTC/HTC involving foreign travel observing as under:- “The interim order granted by this Court is explained to the effect that any amount paid to the petitioner towards LTC or reimbursement of LTC pursuant to the impugned order would not amount to income so as to enable the Bank to deduct tax at source. It is made clear that if the Writ Petition is dismissed, the employees are liable to pay tax on the amount paid by the Bank.” 4. Considering the above judgments of Apex Court and Madras High Court, the DCIT (TDS) Circle 3(1), Bangalore treated the deductor as assessee in default for not deducting tax at source u/s. 192 r.w.s. 10(5) of the Act. Aggrieved by this order, the assessee filed appeal before the First Appellate Authority (FAA). ITA No.317/Bang/2024 Page 4 of 15 5. The ld. FAA has observed and dismissed the appeal stating as under:- “7.7 The amount received by the employees of the appellant- employer towards their LTC claims is not liable for the exemption as these employees had visited foreign countries which are not permissible under the law. 7.8 The provisions of law discussed above prescribe that the fare between the two points, within India will be given and the LTC which will be given will be of the shortest route between these two places, which have to be within India. 7.9 The purpose of LTC is to acquaint employees with Indian culture, as emphasized by the 6th Pay Commission. The scheme was not designed to permit foreign travel, as highlighted in the Commission's report. The obligation to deduct tax is distinct from the payment of tax. The appellant cannot plead ignorance. as during LTC bill settlement, all relevant travel details are available. Therefore it cannot be deemed a bona fide mistake, given the appellant- employer's access to complete facts. 7.10 The Management Board of the appellant-employer, through a Circular dated 15.04.2014, withdrew the LTC/ LFC facility covering overseas travel for its employees. Subsequently, employees filed Writ Petition No. 11991 of 2014 against this decision. The Hon'ble Madras High Court, in its order dated 24.06.2022, finally dismissed the writ petition, asserting that the Income Tax department is empowered to invoke provisions for Tax Deducted at Source (TDS) deduction if travel concession is extended abroad. In such cases, TDS is applicable, and procedures under the Income Tax Act should be followed. 7.11 The employees of the appellant-employer challenged the order dated 24.06.2022 through a writ appeal, which was accepted by the Hon'ble High Court. In its interim order dated 08.08.2022, the Court stated: "Since the action impugned in the writ petition is the policy decision of the Management, which the learned single Judge has ITA No.317/Bang/2024 Page 5 of 15 upheld, we do not consider it proper to direct the respondent Bank to continue to extend the said benefit to its officers during the pendency of the appeal. At the same time, however, the officers need to be protected regarding recovery from their salary and also against any consequential coercive proceedings by any of the authorities." 7.12 It is evident that the appellant-employer itself does not allow the foreign component as part of the LTC/LFC. Furthermore, the orders dated 24.06.2022 and 08.08.2022 are not related to the TDS deduction liability of the appellant-employer but pertain to the policy decision of the Management regarding its LTC/LFC policy. 7.13 The matter regarding LTC claims involving a foreign component and their exemption from TDS deduction have been conclusively resolved by the Hon'ble Supreme Court through its order dated 04.11.2022 in Civil Appeal No. 8181 of 2022. The Hon'ble Court in this order held that the moment employees undertake travel with a foreign leg, it is not travel within India and hence not covered under the provisions of section 10(5) of the Act. Therefore, I find no deficiency in the AO's orders. 7.14 Further, in relation to the computation of TDS liability, the appellant has not provided adequate support for its claim during the proceedings, and no documents have been submitted to validate its assertion about the applicable TDS rates for its employees. Consequently, the appellant's contention is rejected due to a lack of substantial evidence. 8. In view of the above, giving due regard to the decisions of the authorities relied on by the appellant, all grounds of appeal are dismissed.” 6. Aggrieved from the above order, the assessee is in appeal before the ITAT. 7. The ld. AR reiterated submissions made before the lower authorities and submitted that assessee was under bonafide belief that ITA No.317/Bang/2024 Page 6 of 15 tax was not required to be deducted on the foreign travel carried out by employees of assessee. The assessee is deducting TDS on salary payments regularly following the provisions laid down u/s. 192. He further submitted that recovery of demand be stayed till the date of final decision of the Apex Court is effected. He also submitted that assessee is willing to file petition u/s. 119(2)(a) of the Act for waiver of interest charges u/s. 201(1A)(i). He also referred to the orders of Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of All India State Bank Officers Federation & Ors. V. SBI in WP No.11991/2014 dated 24.06.2022 and in W.A. No.1653/2022 dated 08.08.2022 and Hon’ble Supreme Court order in the case of State Bank of India & Anr. V. All India State Bank Officers Federation & Ors. Dated 28.08.2023 and Circulars issued by SBI for grant of LTC to employees from time to time which are placed on record. 8. The ld. DR relied on the order of lower authorities and submitted that the assessee’s employees have travelled outside India and they have been allowed expenditure towards LTC which are not exempt u/s. 10(5) of the Act. Even as per LTC Rules, employees should have travelled within the shortest route in India. However, in this case, employees have travelled to various places including foreign travel. He further submitted that the coordinate Bench of Delhi ITAT in the case of State Bank of India, Personal Banking Branch, New Delhi & Ors. in ITA Nos.2502 to 2513/DEL/2022 by order dated 27.02.2024 has considered similar issue and decided in favour of revenue and therefore the same has to be followed. ITA No.317/Bang/2024 Page 7 of 15 9. Considering rival submissions, we note that assessee has not deducted TDS on the LTC reimbursement towards foreign travel by the employees of assessee and exempted from TDS ignoring the mandatory requirement of provision of section 192 of the Income Tax Act. 1961. For the sake of convenience we are reproducing the Section 10(5) of the Act reads as under:- “(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 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 connection 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 33 (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 : Provided that the amount exempt under this clause shall in no case exceed the amount of expenses actually incurred for the purpose of such travel. Explanation.—For the purposes of this clause, "family", in relation to an individual, 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;” 10. From the above section it is clear that if employees of the assessee travel within India and receive any value for any travel concession or assistance along with his family, is exempt from tax. Therefore there is no requirement of TDS on such value/assistance received from employer. However, in this case, we observe that employees of assessee have travelled outside India which is not exempt income n the hands of the assessee’s employees. Therefore this value ITA No.317/Bang/2024 Page 8 of 15 or assistance should be considered for TDS u/s. 192 of the Act. Similar issue has been decided by the coordinate Bench of the Tribunal in State Bank of India, Personal Banking Branch, New Delhi & Ors. (supra) in which it has been held as under:- “ 3. At the outset, both the parties fairly submitted that the only issue in the appeal of the Revenue is “whether TDS is liable to be deducted on the LTC paid to employees or not”. 4. Both the parties fairly submitted that the issue is decided in favour of Revenue in assessee’s own case by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. We find that the issue is decided by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of SBI Vs. ACIT in Civil Appeal No.8181 of 2022 dated 04.11.2022 wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court affirming the decision of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court and the Tribunal held that the assessee ought to have deducted tax at source on the payments made to its employees as LTC. While holding so, Hon'ble Supreme Court held as under: “2. The question which has fallen for our consideration is whether the appellant was in default for not deducting tax at source while releasing payments to its employees as Leave Travel Concession (LTC). 3. LTC is a payment made to an employee which is exempted as ‘income’ and hence under normal circumstances, there should be no question of TDS on this payment. All the same, LTC has to be availed by an employee within certain limitations, prescribed by the law. Firstly, the travel must be done from one designated place in India to another designated place within India. In other words, LTC is not for a foreign travel. Secondly, LTC is given for the shortest route between these two places. Admittedly, the employees of SBI in the present case, had done their travel not just within India but their journey involved a foreign leg as well. It was also not the shortest route, consequently, according to the Revenue this was not a travel from a designated place within India to another designated place in India and thus it was in violation of the statutory provisions and hence the payment made to its employees by the Bank could not be exempted, and the Bank ought to have deducted Tax at source, while making this payment. To give an example of one of the employees of the appellant who availed LTC taking a circuitous route of Delhi-Madurai- Columbo-Kuala Lampur- ITA No.317/Bang/2024 Page 9 of 15 Singapore-Columbo-Delhi and his claim was fully reimbursed by the appellant and no tax was deducted under Section 192(1) for the same. 4. The appellant on the other hand through its counsel senior advocate Shri K.V. Vishwanathan, would argue that though the travel made by its employees under LTC did involve a foreign leg and admittedly a circuitous route as opposed to the shortest route was taken, yet two things go in the favour of the employees. Firstly, the employees of the appellant did travel from one designated place in India to another place within India (though in their travel itinerary a foreign country was also involved), and secondly the payments which were actually made to these employees was for the shortest route of their travel between two designated places within India. In other words, no payment was made for foreign travel though a foreign leg was a part of the itinerary undertaken by these employees. 5. The above reasons given by the appellant-bank however, has not found favour either with the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax or with the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) or even the High Court. After examining the matter our considered opinion is that the view taken by the Delhi High Court and the Tribunal and even by the revenue in its initiation of proceedings cannot be faulted. The appellant whom we shall refer to as the ‘assessee-employer’ ought to have deducted tax at source. 6. Let us first go through some of the relevant provisions of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short ‘the Act’) and the Income Tax Rules, 1962 framed therein. Let us first take Section 192(1) of the Act which casts a statutory duty on the employer to deduct Tax at source from the salary of its employee: “192(1) Any person responsible for paying any income chargeable under the head “Salaries” shall, at the time of payment, deduct income- tax on the amount payable at the average rate of income- tax computed on the basis of the rates in force for the financial year in which the payment is made, on the estimated income of the assessee under this head for that financial year.” 7. The consequences of failure to deduct tax at source when it is due, is given in Section 201, which reads as follows:— “Consequences of failure to deduct or pay. 201. (1) Where any person, including the principal officer of a company,— ITA No.317/Bang/2024 Page 10 of 15 (a) who is required to deduct any sum in accordance with the provisions of this Act; or (b) referred to in sub-section (1A) of section 192, being an employer, does not deduct, or does not pay, or after so deducting fails to pay, the whole or any part of the tax, as required by or under this Act, then, such person, shall, without prejudice to any other consequences which he may incur, be deemed to be an assessee in default in respect of such tax: Provided that any person, including the principal officer of a company, who fails to deduct the whole or any part of the tax in accordance with the provisions of this Chapter on the sum paid to a payee or on the sum credited to the account of a payee shall not be deemed to be an assessee in default in respect of such tax if such payee- (i) has furnished his return of income under section 139; (ii) has taken into account such sum for computing income in such return of income; and (iii) (iii) has paid the tax due on the income declared by him in such return of income, and the person furnishes a certificate to this effect from an accountant in such form as may be prescribed Provided further that no penalty shall be charged under section 221 from such person, unless the Assessing Officer is satisfied that such person, without good and sufficient reasons, has failed to deduct and pay such tax. 8. Section 10(5) which exempts payments received as LTC with which we are presently concerned. It reads as under:— XXXX XXXXXXXXX 9. The above provision has to be read along with Rule 2B of Income Tax Rules. Rule 2B reads as under:— “[Conditions for the purpose of section 10(5). 2B. (1) The amount exempted under clause (5) of section 10 in respect of the value of travel concession or assistance received by or due to the individual from his employer or former employer for himself and his family, in connection with his proceeding,— (a) on leave to any place in India; ITA No.317/Bang/2024 Page 11 of 15 (b) to any place in India after retirement from service or after the termination of his service, shall be the amount actually incurred on the performance of such travel subject to the following conditions, namely :— [(i) where the journey is performed on or after the 1st day of October, 1997, by air, an amount not exceeding the air economy fare of the national carrier by the shortest route to the place of destination; (ii) where places of origin of journey and destination are connected by rail and the journey is performed on or after the 1st day of October, 1997, by any mode of transport other than by air, an amount not exceeding the airconditioned first class rail fare by the shortest route to the place of destination; and (iii) where the places of origin of journey and destination or part thereof are not connected by rail and the journey is performed on or after the 1st day of October, 1997, between such places, the amount eligible for exemption shall be:— (A) where a recognised public transport system exists, an amount not exceeding the 1st class or deluxe class fare, as the case may be, on such transport by the shortest route to the place of destination; and (B) where no recognised public transport system exists, an amount equivalent to the air-conditioned first class rail fare, for the distance of the journey by the shortest route, as if the journey had been performed by rail.]” 10. The appellant before us is a Public Sector Bank, namely, State Bank of India (SBI). The Revenue has held the appellant to be an “assessee in default”, for not deducting the tax at source of its employees. 11. These proceedings started with a Spot Verification under Section 133A when it was discerned by the Revenue that some of the employees of the assessee-employer had claimed LTC even for their travel to places outside India. These employees, even though, raised a claim of their travel expenses between two points within India but between the two points they had also travelled to a foreign country as well, thus taking a circuitous route for their destination which involved a foreign place. The matter was hence examined by the Assessing Officer who was of the opinion that the amount of money received by ITA No.317/Bang/2024 Page 12 of 15 an employee as LTC is exempted under Section 10(5) of the Act, however, this exemption cannot be claimed by an employee for travel outside India which has been done in this case and therefore the assessee-employer defaulted in not deducting tax at source from this amount claimed by its employees as LTC. There were two violations of the LTC Rules, pointed out by the Assessing Officer: A. The employee did not travel only to a domestic destination but to a foreign country as well and B. The employees had admittedly not taken the shortest possible route between the two destinations thus the Applicant was held to be an assessee in default by the Assessing Officer. 12. The travel undertaken by the employees as LTC was hence in violation of Section 10(5) of the Act read with Rule 2B of the Income Tax Rules, 1962, both of which have been reproduced above. The order of the Assessing Officer was challenged before CIT (A), which was dismissed and so was their appeal before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal. 13. The Delhi High Court vide its order dated 13.01.2020 dismissed the appeal holding that there was no substantial question of law in the Appeal. It was held that the amount received by the employees of the assessee employer towards their LTC claims is not liable for the exemption as these employees had visited foreign countries which is not permissible under the law. 14. The provisions of law discussed above prescribe that the air fare between the two points, within India will be given and the LTC which will be given will be of the shortest route between these two places, which have to be within India. A conjoint reading of the provisions discussed herein with the facts of this case cannot sustain the argument of the appellant that the travel of its employees was within India and no payments were made for any foreign leg involved. 15. We do not want to get into the role of the travel agencies and the present dynamics of air fare, but it is difficult for us to accept that a person will avail foreign tour without paying any price for it. We leave it at that. 16. It can be seen from the records that many of the employees of the appellants had undertaken travel to Port Blair via Malaysia, Singapore or Port Blair via Bangkok, Malaysia or Rameswaram via Mauritius or Madurai via Dubai, Thailand and Port Blair via Europe etc. It is very ITA No.317/Bang/2024 Page 13 of 15 difficult to appreciate as to how the appellant who is the assessee- employer could have failed to take into account this aspect. This was the elephant in the room. 17. The contention of the Appellant that there is no specific bar under Section 10(5) for a foreign travel and therefore a foreign journey can be availed as long as the starting and destination points remain within India is also without merits. LTC is for travel within India, from one place in India to another place in India. There should be no ambiguity on this. 18. The second argument urged by the appellant that payments made to these employees was of the shortest route of their actual travel cannot be accepted either. It has already been clarified above, that in view of the provisions of the Act, the moment employees undertake travel with a foreign leg, it is not a travel within India and hence not covered under the provisions of Section 10(5) of the Act. 19. A foreign travel also frustrates the basic purpose of LTC. The basic objective of the LTC scheme was to familiarize a civil servant or a Government employee to gain some perspective of Indian culture by traveling in this vast country. It is for this reason that the 6th Pay Commission rejected the demand of paying cash compensation in lieu of LTC and also rejected the demand of foreign travel. In para 4.3.4 of the 6th Pay Commission Report dated March, 2008 this is what was said:— “4.3.4. The demand for allowing travel abroad at least once in the entire career under the scheme is not in consonance with the basic objective of the scheme. The Government employee cannot gain any perspective of the Indian culture by traveling abroad. Besides, the attendant cost in foreign travel would also make the expenditure under this scheme much higher. The Commission is, therefore, not inclined to concede the demand to allow foreign travel under LTC.” 20. This is also an objection of the Revenue which has been raised in its counter affidavit filed by respondent no. 1-Assistant Commission of Income Tax wherein the Revenue has asserted that the provision for LTC was introduced to motivate employees and encourage its employees towards tourism in India and it is for this reason that reimbursement of LTC was exempted. There was no intention of legislature to allow the employees to travel abroad in the garb of LTC available by virtue of Section 10(5) of the Act. Therefore, the Revenue has a valid objection (apart from other objections which are clearly violative of the Statute), that the intention and purpose of the scheme is ITA No.317/Bang/2024 Page 14 of 15 also violated in the garb of tour within India, foreign travel is being availed. 21. The aforementioned order passed by the CIT(A) has rightly held that the obligation of deducting tax is distinct from payment of tax. The appellant cannot claim ignorance about the travel plans of its employees as during settlement of LTC Bills the complete facts are available before the assessee about the details of their employees’ travels. Therefore, it cannot be a case of bonafide mistake, as all the relevant facts were before the Assessee employer and he was therefore fully in a position to calculate the ‘estimated income’ of its employees. The contention of Shri K.V. Vishwanathan, learned senior advocate that there may be a bonafide mistake by the assessee-employer in calculating the ‘estimated income’ cannot be accepted since all the relevant documents and material were before the assessee-employer at the relevant time and the assessee employer therefore ought to have applied his mind and deducted tax at source as it was his statutory duty, under Section 192(1) of the Act. 22. In conclusion we do not find any reason to interfere with the order passed by the Delhi High Court. The appeal is dismissed.” 5. We have perused the order of the Hon'ble Madras High Court in MP No.2 of 2014 in WP No.1199/2014 dated 16.02.2015 referred by the ld. AR and observed that a writ petition was filed challenging the circular issued by the SBI to the effect that officers/employees would not be entitled to visit Overseas Countries/Centers as part of LTC /HTC. In the interim order passed by the Hon'ble Madras High Court, it has been held that any amount paid to the petitioner towards LTC/reimbursement of LTC pursuant to the impugned order would not amount to income so as to enable the bank to deduct tax at source. We further observed that the Hon'ble Madras High Court in its interim order held that if the writ petition is dismissed, the employees are liable to pay tax on the amount paid by the bank. 6. However, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of the assessee in Civil Appeal No.8181 of 2022 arising out of SLP(C) No.. 9876 of 2020 dated 4.11.2022 affirmed the order of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in holding that the assessee is liable to deduct tax at source on the payments made to its employees towards LTC bills. In view of the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the interim stay granted by the Hon'ble Madras High Court is of no help to the assessee ITA No.317/Bang/2024 Page 15 of 15 bank. Thus, respectfully following the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, we hold that the assessee is in default within the meaning of section 201(1)(1A) of the Act for nondeduction of tax under Section 192 of the Act on the reimbursement of LTC (Leave Travel Concession) /LFC (Leave Fare Concession) and HTC (Home Travel Concession). 7. In the result, the appeals of the assessee are dismissed.” 11. We also note that the Hon’ble Apex Court had decided the issue in favour of revenue in the case of State Bank of India v. ACIT in C.A. No.8181 of 2022 dated 04.11.2022 reported in [2022] 144 taxmann.com 131 (SC). The entire arguments raised by the assessee has been considered in the above decision of the coordinate Bench of Delhi ITAT. Respectfully following the same, we dismiss the appeal of the assessee. Pronounced in the open court on this 28 th day of June, 2024. Sd/- Sd/- ( KESHAV DUBEY) (LAXMI PRASAD SAHU ) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Bangalore, Dated, the 28 th June, 2024. /Desai S Murthy / Copy to: 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. Pr.CIT 4. CIT(A) 5. DR, ITAT, Bangalore. By order Assistant Registrar ITAT, Bangalore.