Filing Form 67 for Foreign Tax Credit under Section 139(1) is directory, not mandatory, says ITAT Bangalore

The ITAT Bangalore held that the requirement to file Form 67 for claiming Foreign Tax Credit (FTC) is directory and not mandatory. The assessee's failure to submit Form 67 before the due date under section 139(1) does not warrant denial of FTC. The tribunal distinguished the precedent relied upon by the CIT(A) and set aside the CIT(A)'s order, directing the AO to allow the assessee's FTC claim. The appeal was allowed for statistical purposes.

---

---

1. ISSUES PRESENTED AND CONSIDERED

Whether non-filing or delayed filing of Form No.67 beyond the due date under section 139(1) is fatal to the claim for Foreign Tax Credit (FTC) under section 90/91 and Rule 128 of the Income Tax Rules, 1962.

Whether Rule 128(9) prescribes a mandatory condition warranting denial of FTC for non-compliance, or is a directory/procedural requirement that cannot extinguish the substantive right to credit under the DTAA and section 90.

Whether revenue authorities are precluded from denying FTC on a purely procedural ground where substantive conditions for relief under the DTAA and the Act are satisfied, and whether verification by the Assessing Officer is a prerequisite before allowing FTC where the claim was not timely supported by Form 67.

2. ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS

Issue 1: Effect of non-filing/delayed filing of Form No.67 on entitlement to Foreign Tax Credit

Legal framework: Section 90 of the Income Tax Act empowers relief in respect of taxes paid in a foreign country under a DTAA. Rule 128 (subrules (8) and (9)) prescribes that an assessee shall furnish Form No.67 and supporting certificate/statements on or before the due date for furnishing return under section 139(1).

Precedent treatment: Coordinate benches of the Tribunal have held filing of Form 67 to be directory and not a mandatory precondition for FTC; certain High Court and Supreme Court jurisprudence distinguish substantive conditions from procedural formalities and treat procedure as subordinate to substantive rights.

Interpretation and reasoning: Rule 128(9) prescribes timing for filing Form 67 but does not expressly provide a consequence of disallowance of FTC upon delay. The Tribunal reasons that absence of an express penal consequence in the Rule indicates a procedural (directory) requirement. The legislative intent of section 90 and the DTAA is to afford relief from double taxation; denying FTC solely for procedural lapse would defeat that purpose. Where the substantive eligibility for credit is established (tax paid abroad, income offered to tax in India), withholding relief on timing grounds would be inconsistent with the DTAA and section 90's object.

Ratio vs. Obiter: Ratio - Filing of Form 67 is directory; delayed filing alone does not disentitle an assessee to FTC where substantive conditions are met. Obiter - observations on equitable considerations and bona fide mistakes in first year of foreign income (contextual).

Conclusion: Non-filing or delayed filing of Form No.67 is not automatically fatal to an assessee's claim for FTC; the requirement in Rule 128(9) is directory rather than mandatory and cannot, by itself, justify denial of FTC.

Issue 2: Whether Rule 128(9) is mandatory or directory and the legal effect of that classification

Legal framework: Rule-making power under section 295 and specifically section 295(2)(ha) empowers Board to prescribe procedure for granting relief under section 90/91/91A; Rule 128 prescribes procedural requirements for claiming FTC.

Precedent treatment: Supreme Court authorities distinguish between substantive mandatory conditions and procedural requirements that are directory; coordinate benches and Tribunal decisions have applied that principle to Form 67 and Rule 128.

Interpretation and reasoning: The Tribunal applies the principle that not all statutory conditions are equal - some are substantive, others procedural. Given that Rule 128 prescribes procedure but does not expressly convert non-compliance into forfeiture of the right to credit, the Rule should be construed as directory. The Rule-maker's power to prescribe procedure does not extend to creating substantive conditions inconsistent with the DTAA or section 90. Where specific statutory provisions impose forfeiture expressly, such language is present; its absence in Rule 128(9) is significant.

Ratio vs. Obiter: Ratio - Rule 128(9) is directory; non-compliance does not ipso facto extinguish substantive entitlement to FTC. Obiter - comparisons with other sections where express penal consequences exist (e.g., provisions requiring audit reports) illustrate textual differences.

Conclusion: Rule 128(9) constitutes a directory procedural requirement; it cannot be read to deny FTC absent an express statutory or rule-based provision making late filing fatal.

Issue 3: Primacy of DTAA/section 90 over domestic procedural rules and the requirement of verification by revenue

Legal framework: Section 90(2) provides that, where a DTAA applies, the provisions of the Act apply only to the extent they are more beneficial; DTAA provisions for credit operate to avoid double taxation. Rules cannot override or frustrate treaty-based rights.

Precedent treatment: Courts have held DTAA provisions override conflicting domestic provisions to the extent beneficial to taxpayers; earlier Tribunal decisions affirm the supremacy of substantive treaty relief over procedural non-compliance in Rules.

Interpretation and reasoning: The Tribunal reasons that DTAA and section 90 aim to grant substantive relief; hence revenue cannot deny FTC on a mere procedural ground where substantive eligibility exists. However, the Tribunal recognizes the revenue's legitimate interest in verifying the genuineness of foreign tax payment. Accordingly, the Tribunal directs that the Assessing Officer grant FTC after necessary verification of the foreign tax payment and supporting documents (including the belated Form 67), rather than rejecting the claim solely for timing non-compliance.

Ratio vs. Obiter: Ratio - DTAA/substantive entitlement prevails over procedural deficiency; revenue may verify the claim but cannot deny FTC solely on the ground of delayed Form 67. Obiter - procedural mechanisms for verification and administrative practice comments.

Conclusion: The DTAA/section 90 overrides domestic Rules to protect substantive entitlement to FTC; revenue must verify the claim before allowing FTC but cannot refuse credit solely due to delayed filing of Form 67.

Issue 4: Scope of rectification proceedings and debatable issues

Legal framework: Section 154 rectification proceedings are confined to mistakes apparent on the face of the record; debates as to law or facts may not be appropriate for summary rectification unless only one view is possible.

Precedent treatment: Authorities distinguish issues that are debatable from those admitting only one possible answer; rectification may be permissible where the question admits only a single view.

Interpretation and reasoning: The Tribunal finds that the question whether Rule 128(9) renders Form 67 filing mandatory was not genuinely debatable in light of textual analysis, legislative intent, treaty primacy, and consistent coordinate bench decisions; hence rectification could be entertained to correct denial of FTC on that ground. The Tribunal therefore rejects the contention that the matter was a debatable question precluding rectification consideration.

Ratio vs. Obiter: Ratio - Where only one legal view is tenable, rectification proceedings may be resorted to even if the matter involves legal interpretation; denial of FTC on mandatory-rule premises was susceptible to rectification. Obiter - observations distinguishing cases where genuine debatable issues exist.

Conclusion: Rectification was properly available in the circumstances because the legal question admitted only one tenable answer - that Form 67 filing is directory - and thus the denial on that basis could be rectified.

Final Disposition and Practical Direction

The Tribunal concludes that filing of Form No.67 is a directory requirement; delayed filing does not automatically disentitle an assessee to FTC where substantive conditions under the DTAA and section 90 are satisfied. The Tribunal sets aside the denial and directs the Assessing Officer to allow the claimed FTC after necessary verification of foreign tax payment and supporting documents.

---