2023 (9) TMI 31

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....s of the case and in law, the Foreign Tax Credit claimed at Rs. 161528/- ought to have been allowed to the assessee. 2. That the assessee's claim of Foreign Tax Credit at Rs. 161528/- should not have been rejected, simply on the ground that Form 67 was not filed on or before the due date specified for furnishing the ITR under sub-section (1) of section 139. Note: Assessee had filed Form 67 on 26.03.2021 i.e. before and of the assessment year. 3. That the assessee's claim of Foreign Tax Credit at Rs. 161528/- deserves to be allowed in the light of the CBDT Notification No. 100/2022/F.No.370142/35/2022-TPL dt. 18.08.2022, through which sub rule (9) has been substituted. Note: Time limit for filing F....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ct would be denied. Reliance was placed on the decision of Hon'ble Apex Court in Mangalore Chemical and Fertilizers Ltd. vs. Deputy Commissioner, 1992 Supp (1) Supreme Court Case 21 in support of the proposition that filing Form 67 being procedural requirement is not mandatory and violation thereof will not extinguish the substantial right of the assessee to claim FTC. 5. The contentions raised by the assessee did not convince the Ld. CIT(A) who denied relief to the assessee by observing, interalia as follows in para 4.2.9 of his order as under:- "4.2.9 I have carefully considered the claim of the appellant and the case laws relied upon. Admittedly Form 67 has been filed beyond the due date and because of this the appellant is n....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... Tribunal have held that filing Form 67 is a procedural/directory requirement and is not a mandatory requirement. We, therefore, disagree with the view of the Ld. CIT(A) on the point and reproduce below the decision in the case of Miss Brinda Rama Krishna (supra) in which facts are identical: "16. I have given a careful consideration to the rival submissions. I agree with the contentions put forth by the learned counsel for the Assessee and hold that (i) Rule 128(9) of the Rules does not provide for disallowance of FTC in case of delay in filing Form No.67; (ii) filing of Form No.67 is not mandatory but a directory requirement and (iii) DTAA overrides the provisions of the Act and the Rules cannot be contrary to the Act. I am of th....