Case Law Details
State Bank of India Vs ACIT (ITAT Mumbai)
A plain reading of the section 10(5) read with rule 2B does not indicate any requirement of taking the shortest route for travelling to “any place in India” or putting any kind of restrictions the route to be adopted for going to such a destination. Quite to the contrary, the statutory provisions do envisage the possibilities of someone taking a route other than the shortest route, as is implicit in the restriction that “an amount not exceeding the air economy fare of the national carrier by the shortest route to the place of destination” will only be eligible for exemption under section 10(5). What is essentially implies, to give a simple example, is that if someone is based in Mumbai and he decides to go to Delhi via, let us say, Lucknow, Kolkata, or Chennai, the amount admissible for exemption under section 10(5) will be restricted to the price of direct flights between Mumbai and Delhi on the national carrier. This proposition is not even disputed by the income tax department. The question, however, arises whether when the same person goes to Delhi, via Dubai, the exempt leave travel concession being restricted to the price of Mumbai Delhi direct flight. Of course, the stand of the income tax department is that even the cost of the direct flight from Mumbai to Delhi, on the national carrier- assuming that it is less than Mumbai-Dubai-Delhi airfare, will not be admissible leave travel assistance exemption in such a case. That is the approach approved by the coordinate benches as well, and, therefore, we need not question that at this stage. The relevant question, however, is not the actual status of taxation; the relevant question is whether the assessee employer could be said to unreasonable or malafide in proceeding on the basis that in such a situation also, the cost of a direct flight between Mumbai Delhi on national airlines will be available for exemption under section 10(5). When we look at the detailed statement of facts, extracts from which have been extensively reproduced by us earlier in this order, we do not find anything wrong or unreasonable in the conduct of the assessee employer. There is no specific bar in the law on the travel, eligible for exemption under section 10(5), involving a sector of overseas travel, and, in the absence of such a bar, the assessee employer cannot be faulted for not inferring such a bar. The reimbursement is restricted to airfare, on the national carrier, by the shortest route- as is the mandate of rule 2B. The employee has actually travelled, as a part of that composite itinerary involving a foreign sector as well, to the destination in India. The guidance available to the assessee employer indicates that, in such a situation, the exemption under section 10(5) is available to the employee- though to the extent of farthest Indian destination by the shortest route, and that is what the assessee employer has allowed. In the light of this analysis of the legal position and the factual backdrop, whatever may be the position with respect of taxability of such a leave travel concession in the hands of the employee, the assessee employer cannot be faulted for not deducting tax at source from the leave travel concession facility allowed by him to the employees. As we hold so, we may add that we have not really addressed ourselves to the larger question with respect to the actual taxability of this leave travel concession in the hands of the employees concerned, even though we have our prima facie reservations on the coordinate benches decisions holding taxability of these amounts in the hands of the employees concerned, because that aspect of the matter is not really relevant as on now. We leave it at that for the time being. The coordinate bench decisions deal with only the issue of taxability of leave travel facility under section 10(5) and not with the broader question about the nature of tax deduction at source liability under section 192, as also the issue about bonafides of the stand of the assessee employer. These decisions, therefore, do not come in the way of our present decision. Once we hold, as we do in this case, that estimation of income, in the hands of the employees under the head’ income from salaries’, by the employer was bonafide and reasonable, the very foundation of impugned demands raised under section 201 r.w.s 192 ceases to hold good in law. We must, therefore, vacate these demands.
FULL TEXT OF THE ITAT JUDGEMENT
1. This appeal calls into question the correctness of the order dated 11th December 2018 passed by the learned CIT(A), in the matter of tax withholding demands raised on the assessee under section 201 r.w.s 192 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for the assessment year 2012-13.
2. Grievances raised by the assessee are as follows:
Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.
