Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Delhi
State Bank Of India, Karnal vs Ito (Tds), Karnal on 25 September, 2024
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
DELHI BENCH 'G': NEW DELHI
BEFORE SHRI VIKAS AWASTHY, JUDICIAL MEMBER
AND
SHRI AVDHESH KUMAR MISHRA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER
ITA No.791/Del/2024, A.Y.2016-17
State Bank of India Income Tax Officer (TDS),
RACPC Branch, Karnal
15619, Plot No. 1- 2, Vs.
Sector- 5, Panchkula
PAN: AAA CS 8577K
(Appellant) (Respondent)
ITA No.792/Del/2024, A.Y.2016-17
State Bank of India Income Tax Officer (TDS),
SME Branch-4047, Karnal
1 s t F loor, M arvel Tower, Vs.
Opp. Manav Seva Sangh,
Near Old Bus Stand, Karnal
Haryana
PAN: AAA CS 8577K
(Appellant) (Respondent)
Appellant by Sh. Vivek Gupta, CA
Respondent by Ms. Maninder Kaur, Sr. DR
Date of Hearing 25/09/2024
Date of Pronouncement 25/09/2024
ORDER
PER AVDHESH KUMAR MISHRA, AM
Common grounds and facts arise in the above captioned appeals of the assessee; therefore, these appeals were heard together and are being disposed off by this common order.
1
ITA No.791 & 792/Del/2024
2. Both appeals for the Assessment Year (hereinafter, the 'AY') 2016- 17 filed by the assessee are directed against the order dated 20.12.2023 passed by the Additional/Joint Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Prayagraj [hereinafter, the 'JCIT (A)'].
3. The sole issue for determination, in both appeals for the same AY, before us is that whether the JCIT(A) is justified in upholding the finding of the Assessing Officer (hereinafter, the 'AO') that the assessee was in default due to failure to deduct tax at source (TDS) on Leave Fare Concession (LFC) [It is nothing but LTC] and the consequential orders passed under section 201(1)& 201(1A) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter, the 'Act') were justified.
4. The brief facts of the case for deciding these appeals are that the AO found that many employees of SBI availed the LFC/LTC facility and travelled to foreign countries. The AO held that the money received by an employee as LFC/LTC for travelling within the territory of India was only exempted under Section 10(5) of the Act and this exemption could not be claimed by an employee for travel outside India, which had been done in these cases and; therefore, the AO held that the SBI had defaulted in not deducting tax at source (TDS) from such amount claimed by its employees as LFC/LTC. Consequentially, the AO, after holding the appellant/assessee in default due to failure to deduct tax at 2 ITA No.791 & 792/Del/2024 source on LFC, raised the consequential demand under section 201(1) & 201(1A) of the Act. The SBI challenged the AO's order before the JCIT(A), which was dismissed.
5. At the outset, the Ld. Authorized Representative (hereinafter, the 'AR') confessed that the issue in dispute here had already been decided in favour of the revenue by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the appellant/assessee's case in Civil Appeal No.8181 of 2022 vide order dated 04 November 2022. Therefore, these appeals needed to be dismissed as such, being covered matter. The Sr. DR therefore, was not required to argue the case.
6. We find merit in the submission of the Ld. AR. In view of the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the appellant/assessee's case in Civil Appeal No.8181 of 2022, both the captioned appeals are dismissed as such.
7. In the result, both appeals of the assessee stand dismissed.
Order pronounced in open Court on 25th September, 2024 Sd/- Sd/-
(VIKAS AWASTHY) (AVDHESH KUMAR MISHRA)
JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER
Dated: 25/09/2024
Binita, Sr. PS
Copy forwarded to:
3
ITA No.791 & 792/Del/2024
1. Appellant
2. Respondent
3. CIT
4. JCIT(Appeals)
5. Sr. DR: ITAT
ASSISTANT REGISTRAR
ITAT, NEW DELHI
4