TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2020 (12) TMI 106
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....g to Rs. 1,40,358. 3. The brief facts of the case are as follow: The assessee is a branch of State Bank of India. There was a survey u/s 133A of the I.T.Act conducted in the premises of the bank. During the course of survey, it was noticed that the assessee had not deducted tax at source properly. Accordingly, the Assessing Officer passed orders u/s 201 of the I.T.Act on 28.03.2014 treating the assessee as an assessee in default. Thereafter, the A.O. passed order u/s 271C of the I.T.Act on 11.12.2017 and imposed penalty of Rs. 1,40,358. 4. Aggrieved by the order of the Assessing Officer imposing penalty u/s 271C of the I.T.Act, the assessee preferred an appeal to the first appellate authority. Since there was no appearance befor....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... not wanton but on a bona fide belief. We found the co-ordinate bench of Tribunal in the case of Syndicate Bank vs. ACIT in ITA Nos.651 to 656/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: "11. The learned counsel for the Assessee submitted that when the Hon'ble High Court admits an appeal against 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 penalty can be levied u/s 271C. In this regard the learned counsel for the Assessee placed relia....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ance allowance. 11. We thus find that there is nothing specific which has been provided by CBDT in its circular issued under section 192 for the relevant financial year. What has been reiterated is adherence to the provisions as contained in section 10(5) read with Rule 2B. Similarly, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has also held that an assessee employer 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 towards leave travel concession. Even though the same is not required as per decision referred supra, in the instant case, the assessee bank has been diligent, and has collected and brought on record evidence ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rrier by the shortest route to the place of destination. However, the 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 expenses which is not eligible for exemption under section 10(5) of the Act. However, the assessee's bank explanation to this effect is that section 10(5) and Rule 2B doesn't place a bar on travel to a foreign destination during the course of travel to a place in India and there is nothing explicit provided therein to prohibit such travel in order to deny the exemption. Having considered the rival submissions and facts on record, we are of the opinion that the assessee bank has undertaken reasonable s....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....l. 13. In light of above discussions and in the entirety of facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the considered view that there was reasonable cause in terms of section 273B of the Act for not deducting tax by the assessee Bank. In the result, the penalty so levied under section 271C is hereby directed to be deleted." 12. The learned DR relied on the order of CIT(A) and further drew our attention to a decision of ITAT Bangalore 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 consideration to see parity of facts between the case of the Assessee and the decision of I....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....na fides of the assessee in claiming deduction. Once it turns out that the claim of the assessee could have been considered for deduction as per a person properly instructed in law and is not completely debarred at all, the mere fact of confirmation of disallowance 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 matter as to whether the deduction was to be given or not, was taken up by the revenue authorities and it was held that certain deductions claimed by the assessee were to be disallowed. It is not disputed that the questions regarding the disallowance of the deductions claimed by the assessee is under consideratio....