TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2023 (3) TMI 1467
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... submitted that it be so done now. 2. The Order passed by the learned CIT(A), disallowing the claim of foreign tax credit, is bad in laws as no opportunity of being heard was provided to the Appellant as required under Faceless Appeal scheme notified under sub-section (6B) of section 250 of the Act. The learned CIT(A) failed to follow principle of natural justice before passing such order and thus such order is liable to be quashed. It is submitted that it be so held now. 3. The learned CIT(A) has erred in not adjudicating the ground no.1 of the appeal filed before CIT(A) in respect of not providing opportunity of being heard to the Appellant u/s 154(3) of the Act. It is submitted it be so held now. 4. The learned CIT(A) has erred ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ia and United Kingdom. The assessee accordingly filed return of income on 31.08.2019 declaring total income of Rs. 27,68,730/- which includes salary income from United Kingdom. Since salary income earned in United Kingdom and offered to tax in India, the assessee claimed relief of Rs. 2,37,653/- of taxes paid in UK as per Section 90 of the Act read with Article 24 of DTAA between India and UL while filing tax return. The return of income was processed under Section 143(1) on 19.03.2021 wherein credit for taxes paid in UK was not granted by the Assessing Officer. The assessee filed From 67 on 05.04.2021 and rectification application under Section 154 of the Act on the same day. The rectification order was passed on 29.04.2021 but the mistake....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Officer ITA No. 189 of 2021 (Surat) (2) Ms. Brinda RamaKrishna v. The Income Tax Officer ITA No. 454 of 2021 (Bangalore) (3) Vinodkumar Lakshmipathi v. CIT(A) NFAC ITA No. 680 of 2022 (Bangalore) (4) Sonakshi Sinah v. Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals) ITA No. 1704 of 2022 (Mumbai) (5) 42 Hertz Software India Pvt. Ltd. v. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax ITA No. 29 of 2021 (Bangalore) 6. The Ld. D.R. relied upon the order under Section 154 (3) of the Act and order of the CIT(A). 7. Heard both the parties and perused all the relevant material available on record. It is pertinent to note that the assessee has paid the taxes on the income earned in United Kingdom in that country and assessee is asking for credit of the same whi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....dmaid and not the mistress. It is a lubricant and not a resistance. A procedural law should not ordinarily be construed as mandatory; the procedural law is always subservient to and is in aid to justice. It was submitted that filing of Form 67 as per the provisions of section 90 read with rule 128(9) is a procedural law and should not control the claim of FTC. 12. It was further submitted that even in the context of 80-IA(7), 10A(5) etc, wherein there is specific provision for disallowance of deduction/exemption if audit report is not filed along with the return, various High Courts have taken a view that filing of audit report is directory and not mandatory. Reliance in this regard was placed on the following cases: CIT v. Axis....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....x treaty, the same cannot be disallowed for mere delay in compliance of a procedural provision. 14. The learned DR reiterated the stand of the revenue that rule 128(9) of the Rules, is mandatory and hence the revenue authorities were justified in refusing to give FTC. He also submitted that the issue was debatable and cannot be subject matter of decision in sec.154 proceedings which are restricted in scope to mistakes apparent on the face of the record. 15. In his rejoinder, the learned counsel for the Assessee submitted that Form No. 67 was available before the AO when the intimation u/s. 143(1) of the Act dated 28-5- 2020 was passed. He pointed out that the AO or the CIT(A) did not dismiss the Assessee application for rectification ....