2022 (9) TMI 694

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ent Years 2018-19 & 2019-20 u/s. 143(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter "the Act"), vide orders dated 08.06.2020 & 19.03.2021, respectively. Since facts and issues are common, for the sake of convenience these appeals were heard together and are being disposed off by this consolidated order. 2. The assessee has raised the following Grounds of appeal that are as under: 1. The order of the learned CIT (A) is bad and erroneous in Jaw and against the principles of natural justice. 2. The learned CIT (A) erred in not considering the grounds of appeal and written submissions in proper perspective. 3. The learned CIT (A) erred in exceeding his jurisdiction by confirming the penalty for "concealment of income", while the Assessing....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ncome of Rs. 2,06,058/- in the Netherlands. The AO while processing return of income disallowed the relief claimed by the assessee u/s. 90/90A of the Act resulting into reduction of refund at Rs. 43,35,170/- claimed in return of income for the assessment year under consideration i.e., 2018-19. 4. Similarly, the another assesse i.e, Loganathan Madhavan in ITA No. 441/Chny/2021 filed its return for AY 2019-20 by showing income from salary and filed its original return on 31.08.2019 which was subsequently revised on 27.03.2020 declaring total income of Rs. 88,46,640/- in which the assessee claimed relief on account of foreign tax credit (FTC) at Rs. 13,32,937/- u/s. 90 of the Act. While processing the return of income appellant's claim of FTC....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....s dismissed." 5. Similarly, appeal of the another assessee in ITA No. 441/Chny/2021 for AY 2019-20 was also dismissed by the ld. CIT(A) observing as follows: " 5.3 It is evident from the provisions of sec. 143(1)(b) & (c) that while processing the CPC is empowered to compute the tax based on total income and grant credit for prepaid taxes including any relief allowable u/s. 90 of the Act. It is at this stage, that the appellant has a dispute with the Dept. As discussed above, the FTC is not allowable to be appellant due to the violation of rule 128(9), which is a sine-qua-non for claim of credit of FTC. The argument of the appellant on this score is therefore rejected in view of the above discussion, the action of the CPC in denying the....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ently, the assessee revised its return on 27.03.2020 and Form no. 67 was also filed on 24.03.2020. Therefore, ld. CIT(A) taken view that belated filing Form no. 67 was violation of Rule 128(9) of the Act and disallowed the claim for tax credit to the assessee and while going through the issues, we find that CPC has processed the return of income filed by the assessee, the dispute was in respect of FTC, however, alleged that FTC had not been paid by the assessee but by his employer and therefore, no credit of the same would be granted to the assessee. We after going through the facts of the cases find that FTC has been offered by the assessee(s) as perquisites in the gross total income and tax has been paid thereon. Once this income has been....