IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL LUCKNOW BENCH “A”, LUCKNOW BEFORE SHRI KUL BHARAT, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI ANADEE NATH MISSHRA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No. 635/LKW/2024 Assessment Year: 2016-17 State Bank of India v. DCIT (TDS)

The Mall Road, Kanpur Nagar- 7/119, Radiance Town, 208001. Swaroop Nagar, Kanpur Nagar-208002.

PAN:KNPS02318B (Appellant) (Respondent)

ITA No. 636/LKW/2024 Assessment Year: 2018-19 State Bank of India v. Addl. CIT (TDS)

The Mall Road, Kanpur Nagar- 7/119, Radiance Town, 208001. Swaroop Nagar, Kanpur Nagar-208002.

PAN: KNPS02318B (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by: Shri R. K. Agarwal, Adv Respondent by: Shri Amit Kumar, CIT(DR)

Date of hearing: 21 07 2025 Date of pronouncement: 29 07 2025

O R D E R

PER KUL BHARAT, VICE PRESIDENT.:

These two appeals by the assessee, one against the order u/s 201(1)/201(1A) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (“Act”, for short) dated 29.03.2023 and another against the order u/s 271C of the Act dated 25.05.2023, pertaining to the assessment year 2016-17 and assessment year 2018-19 respectively. For the sake of convenience, both appeals were heard together and are being disposed of by way of consolidated order. First, we will take up the ITA. No. 635/LKW/2024, pertaining to the A.Y. 2016-17. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal: -

“1. That Learned Additional CIT (A), National faceless Appeal Centre, has erred in not holding that the order under section 201(1) and 201(1A) of the income Tax Act 1961 dated 29-03-2023 for the financial year-2015-16, Assessment year-2016-17 is barred by limitation and hence, void — ab -

initio.

(2) That Learned Additional CIT (A), NFAC, has erred in holding that the provisions of section 201(3) of the Income Tax Act 1961, as amended by Finance Act, 2014 are retrospective in nature and applies to the captioned assessment year.

(3) That the Learned Additional CIT (A), NFAC, has erred in holding that the appellant as assessee in default on account of non-deduction of tax at source in respect of leave fare concession (LFC) provided by the appellant to its employees amounting to Rs 225953/- in cases where LFC was paid by the shortest route for a journey where the designated place was in India but the same also involved some in route foreign travel being undertaken by the employee.

(4) That the Learned Additional CIT(A), NFAC, has erred in not appreciating that the benefit of exemption under section 10(5) of the income Tay. Act 1961 is available to the appellant's employee’s designated place is in India and he actually visits the place as designated.

(5) That the Learned Additional CIT(A), NFAC, has erred in not appreciating that the appellant provided exemption under section 10(5) of IT Act 1961 only when the employee’s designated place is in India and he actually visits the place as designated. Further, even in case where the employees travel outside India during the course of his travel to place in India, the exemption under section 10(5) of I T Act 1961 is restricted for travel to place in India. Further, all conditions under section 10(5) of I T Act 1961 and Rules 2B are satisfied.

(6) That the Learned Additional CIT(A), NFAC, has erred in not appreciating that if all the LFC payments under section 10(5) of I T Act 1961 involving a foreign leg are to be held as taxable. The employee is entitled for exemption u/s 10(5) of the I T Act 1961 to the extent of expenses incurred for travel in India where the employee’s designated place is in India and he actually visits the place as designated.

(7) That Learned Additional C1 T (A), N FAC, has erred in nor appreciating that the appellant was of bona fide belief that it was not liable to deduct at source in respect of LFC provide to employee’s and accordingly the appellant cannot be held to be an assessee in default within meaning of section 201 and 201(1A) of the IT Act 1961.

(8) That the grounds of appeal as pleaded before the learned CIT(Appeal)

are relied upon the appeal before the Hon’ble Member, ITAT.