TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2024 (1) TMI 598
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... The grounds of the assessee in ITA No. 857/Chny/2023 are as under: "The appellant submits the following grounds of appeal in addition to various others which will be put forth at the time of hearing of the appeal: GROUNDS OF APPEAL 1. The learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) erred in confirming the order of the CPC Bengaluru in denying the foreign tax credit of Rs. 28,65,292/- for the delayed submission of Form No. 67. 2. The appellant submits that the foreign tax credit cannot be denied simply because the Form No. 67 was filed beyond the due date u/s 139(1). 3. The appellant submits that it is not in dispute that the foreign income offered in the tax return was subjected to tax both in India ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....deleted." 2. The issues involved in both the appeals is identical except the differences in amounts which was disallowed by the AO, CPC and that disallowance was confirmed by the Ld. CIT(A). 3. As the identical issues are involved in both the appeals, we take the Appeal No.857/Chny/2023 for adjudication for the sake of convenience, however, our observations shall be applicable on both the appeals of the assessee. 4. The facts of the case are that the assessee is an individual and is a director of M/s Erbis Engineering Co. Ltd, Tokyo, Japan. The company is a distributor of CANNON (Formerly Toshiba) Medical Equipment's for India and neighbouring countries. The company had established a Branch Office in India. The assessee is in charg....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....needs examination is whether FTC can be granted to the appellant even if there is delay in filing Form 67. If we look at language used in Rule 128(9) which requires assessee's claiming FTC to file Form 67, it used word "shall be furnished", making filing of Form 67 within time limit prescribed a mandatory requirement for claiming FTC. During appellate proceedings, the appellant failed to give any specific reasons for delay of 93 days in filing Form 67 for the year under consideration. The only reason cited was that the appellant failed to file it along with return of income due to oversight. In the present case Form 67 was filed with a delay of almost 2 years i.e. 678 days to be precise. Oversight of appellant can't be considered as a reaso....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 6. From the plain reading of Rule 128(9) of the IT Rules, it is clear that the statement in Form 67 shall be furnished on or before the due date specified for furnishing the return of income under sub-section (1) of section 139 of the Act. Therefore, we are of the considered view that since the word "shall" has been used in the Rule 128(9) that is mandatory in nature and not directory as claimed by the Ld. AR. We therefore find no infirmity in the order of the Ld. CIT(A), NFAC and hence no interference is required". In the case before Hon'ble ITAT, the appellant failed to give any reasons for delay in filing for 67 which is similar to the case at hand. 7.3 Coming to the argument of the appellant that DTAA over ri....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....PC while processing the return has verified whether appellant's claim of FTC is in accordance with conditions laid down under Rule 128 or not. When no Form 67 was filed till the date of processing of the return of income, FTC was denied for which fault can't be found with CPC. Further appellant's authority is not given any power at present to condone the delay in filing Form 67 notwithstanding the act that the appellant has not filed any condonation application. Further, as discussed above, appellant could not give any valid reason for delay in filing Form 67. In view of the above, I am of the considered opinion that no fault can be found with intimation u/s 143(1) dated 08-04-2020 denying FTC of Rs. 28,65,292/- in the hands of appellant fo....