9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (7) TMI 1163X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the light of this Tribunal order rendered in the case of State Bank of India Vs. ACIT (supra) after examining the facts of the present case in the light of this Tribunal order keeping in mind the above discussion after providing adequate opportunity of being heard to both sides. Appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes. - ITA Nos. 532 to 536/Bang/2019 Assessment Years : 2011-12 to 2013-14 - - - Dated:- 12-7-2019 - Shri Arun Kumar Garodia, Accountant Member And Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Judicial Member Assessee by: Shri Dheeraj M., CA Revenue by: Dr. P.V. Pradeep Kumar, Addl. CIT (DR) ORDER Shri A.K. Garodia, All these five appeals are filed by the assessee which are directed against five separate orders of ld. CIT(A)-3, Bangalore all dated 09.01.2019 for Assessment Years 2011-12 to 2013-14. In fact, there are two appeals for each year of the two Assessment Years i.e. 2011-12 and 2012-13 whereas in Assessment Year 2013-14, there is only one appeal. 2. The grounds raised by the assessee for Assessment Year 2011-12 in ITA No. 532/Bang/2019 are as under. 1. The order of th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 3. The learned Commissioner of Income (Appeals) erred in confirming levy of penalty without appreciating the fact that as per Section 273B, if there is any reasonable cause, no penalty can be levied. 3.1. The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in levying penalty without appreciating the fact that there was a reasonable cause for the Appellant bank in not deducting the TDS. 3.2. The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) failed to appreciate that appellant was under the bonafide belief that even where the journey undertaken by an employee involves a foreign leg, the employee is entitled to exemption under Section 10(5) when the employee's designated place is in India. 3.3. The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) failed to appreciate that the appellant had honestly and fairly formed an opinion and arrived at the estimated income of the employees. 3.4. The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) failed to appreciate that the appellant was not required go beyond the declarations given by employees and ascertain the LFC amount exempted. 3.5. The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) failed ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in not following the decision of the Tribunal applicable to the facts of the case. For all these and other grounds, which may be urged at the time of hearing, the appellant prays that its appeal be allowed. 5. The grounds raised by the assessee for Assessment Year 2012-13 in ITA No. 535/Bang/2019 are as under. 1. The order of the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) is bad in law and against the facts of the case. 2. The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in upholding levy of the penalty of ₹ 84,724/- u/s 271C (1) of the Incometax Act, 1961. 3. The learned Commissioner of Income (Appeals) erred in confirming levy of penalty without appreciating the fact that as per Section 273B, if there is any reasonable cause, no penalty can be levied. 3.1. The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in levying penalty without appreciating the fact that there was a reasonable cause for the Appellant bank in not deducting the TDS. 3.2. The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) failed to appreciate that appellant was under the bonafide b ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o appreciate that the appellant had honestly and fairly formed an opinion and arrived at the estimated income of the employees. 3.4. The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) failed to appreciate that the appellant was not required go beyond the declarations given by employees and ascertain the LFC amount exempted. 3.5. The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) failed to appreciate that very fact that the appeal of the appellant has been admitted by the Hon'ble Karnataka High Court, would itself show that the issue is debatable and there was a reasonable cause and hence, no penalty is leviable u/s 271C. 4. The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in not following the decision of the Tribunal applicable to the facts of the case. For all these and other grounds, which may be urged at the time of hearing, the appellant prays that its appeal be allowed. 7. In course of hearing of these appeals, it was submitted by ld. AR of assessee that as per the Tribunal order rendered in the case of State Bank of India Vs. ACIT as reported in [2019] 101 taxmann.com 61 (Jaipur Trib.), copy available on pages 40 to 46 of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... osition being followed and accepted consistently in the past years was followed in the current financial year as well and for the first time, after the survey by the tax department, this issue arose for consideration and after the judgment of the Tribunal, the matter got clarified and the assessee bank has duly complied and deposited the outstanding demand along with interest and has taken corrective steps in subsequent years as well. The bench wanted to know as to whether the assessee in the present case has complied and deposited the outstanding demand along with interest after the Tribunal order in quantum proceedings which is dated 06.04.2017 and whether the assessee has taken corrective steps in subsequent years as well. In reply, both sides agreed that details about these factual aspects is not readily available and hence, matter may be restored back to the file of ld. CIT(A) for fresh decision in the light of this Tribunal order after verifying the factual aspects in the light of this Tribunal order. 9. We have considered the rival submissions. First of all, we reproduce para no. 12 of the Tribunal order rendered in the case of State Bank of India Vs. ACIT (supra). ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... assessee bank in understanding and applying the provisions of section 10(5) of the Act. Therefore, we are unable to accept the Revenue's contention that the assessee bank has not deducted the tax intentionally, 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 been 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 been discovered by the Revenue during the course of its examination. As fairly submitted by the assessee bank, while calculating the estimated tax liability of its employees, it always consider LFC claim as exempt under section 10(5)and the same position, being followed and accepted consistently in the past years, was followed 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 the judgment of the Tribunal, the matter got clarified and the assessee bank has duly complied and deposited the outstanding demand along with in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
