:: ORDER ::

Per, Shri Sonjoy Sarma, JM:

Captioned appeal filed by the assessee, pertaining to assessment year (AY) 2017-18, is directed against the order under section-250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) passed by the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) [in short ‘Ld.CIT(A)’], dated 23.03.2026, which in turn arises out of an order passed by ITO TDS u/s 201 of the Act, dated 26.10.2023.

Brief facts of the case are that the present case of the assessee for the Assessment year 2017-18 was required to deduct TDS at source u/s 192(1) of the Act, on Leave Fair Concession (LFC) payments which include Foreign Travel undertaken by its employees. During the course of proceedings, the Ld. ITO TDS observed that the assessee had allowed exemption in respect of LFC payments made to its employees and tax were required to be deducted at source as required u/s 192(1) of the Act. Accordingly, the AO treated the assessee as an assessee in default u/s 201 & 201(1)(A) of the Act, vide order dt. 26.10.2023 and raised a demand of tax and interest aggregating to Rs.1,32,649/-.

Dissatisfied with the above order, the assessee preferred an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). However, the Ld. CIT(A) upheld the action of the Assessing Officer and dismissed the appeal of the assessee

Still, aggrieved by the above order, assessee is in appeal before this Tribunal.

At the time of hearing, Ld. AR stated that the issue involved in the present appeal is squarely covered by the decision of the co-ordinate bench of the Tribunal in the assessee’s own case in ITA No.365/Ahd/2026 dt. 09.02.2026 in the case of State Bank of India v. Income Tax Officer. It was submitted that the facts and circumstances of the present case are identical to those considering by the Tribunal in the aforesaid decision and therefore the issue stand covered in favour of the assessee.

On the other hand, Ld. DR supported fairly admitted that the issue is covered by the aforesaid decision of the coordinate bench.

We have heard, rival submissions and perused the material available on record. We find that the issue involved in the present appeal in identical and issue considered by the coordinate bench of Ahmedabad Bench in the assessee’s own case in ITA No.365/Ahd/2026, dt. 09.04.2026. For seeking up ready reference the authority portion of the said order is reproduced as under:

The facts of the case are that assessee, M/s. State Bank Of India (TAN: BRDS034528), is a banking branch of M/s. State Bank of India (SBI), which is engaged in the banking business. The Hon'ble Supreme Court, vide order dated 04.11.2022 in Civil Appeal No. 8181 of 2022, held that once an employee undertakes travel involving a foreign leg, such travel cannot be regarded as travel "within India" and, therefore, does not fall within The ambit of section 10(5) of the Act. The Court further held that it is incumbent upon the employer to apply its mind and discharge its statutory obligation under section 192(1) of the Act by deducting tax at source. In view of the above decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court, information was obtained regarding employees who had availed Leave Fare Concession (LFC) during the relevant period, in Uo instant case, in order to verify the correctness of the TDS liability and compliance with the TDS provisions of the appellant, the Assessing Officer (AO) initiated proceedings under section 201(1) of the Act. Consequently, vide order passed under sections 201 and 201(1A) dated 31.03.2023, the AO held the appellant to be an "assessee in default for non-deduction of TDS on an amount of Rs. 20,69,011/-

4. Heard the argument of both the parties and perused the material available on record.

5. At the outset, both the parties fairly submitted that the issue raised by the assessee in the present appeals stands covered by the order of the Tribunal in the case of State Bank of India, Bhavnagar Vs. ITO for A.Y 2016-17 in ITA Nos.453 & 454/Ahd/2026 dated 26.03.2026. For the sake of rea