TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2024 (6) TMI 267
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....irector of Income-tax, Central Processing Center (ITA No. 173/DEL/2024) Rameshwar Prasad Shrivastava Vs. ITO (ITA, No. 1839/Del/2023), Vikash Daga Vs. ACIT (ITA 2536/Del/2022), Ajay Kumar Mishra Vs. DCIT (ITA No. 1835/Del/2022). In the aforesaid decisions, Hon'ble ITAT has held that filing of Form 67 is a procedural/directory requirement and is not a mandatory requirement and violation of procedural norm does not extinguish the substantive right of claiming the credit of FTC." 3. From the bare perusal of materials available on record, it reveals that the solitary grievance of the assessee / appellant is that the Ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming the action of the Learned Assessing Officer (hereinafter referred to as 'Ld. AO'), who denied the foreign tax credit amounting to Rs. 10,29,861/- for the only reason that Form 67 was not filed within due date by assessee / appellant. 4. Heard rival submissions and carefully scanned the materials available on record. 5. Brief facts of the case may be summarized as that the assessee filed the Income Tax return on 10.01.2021 for the assessment year 2020-2021 declaring total income of Rs. 28,97,770.00 and with tax liability as NIL on ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
...., in ITA No. 1839/Del/2023. * Order dated 14.06.2023 in the case of Vikash Daga vs. ACIT in ITA No. 2536/Del/2022. * Order dated 17.04.2023 in the case of Ajay Kumar Mishra vs. DCIT in ITA No. 1835/Del/2022. 8.1 For the ease of ready reference we reproduced the decisions of the Co-ordinate Benches of ITAT, as under: In the case of Isha Mago vs. Asstt. Director of Income Tax (supra), held as under: "5.2. It is also noticed that under similar facts and circumstances the ITAT Delhi Bench 'B' in the case of Eastman Industries Ltd. vs. ACIT (supra) has adjudicated identical issue, observing as under: "7. Since in the present case the. claim of the assessee was denied on this technical aspect without going into the merits of the FTC, therefore, we deem it fit to restore the issue to the files of the AO. The AO is directed to decide the claim of foreign tax credit as per the provisions of the law after admitting / accepting form -67. This common grievance is also allowed for statistical purpose. In the case of Rameshwar Prasad Shrivastava vs. ITO (supra), held as under:- "5. That the claim of FTC was made by the assessee in ter....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....uld apply only to the extent they are more beneficial to a taxpayer. Therefore, the provisions of DTAA override the provisions of the Act, to the extent they are beneficial to the assessee. 7. That the lower authorities intends to disallow the claim of the assessee in terms of Rule 128(9), however as stated above, the provisions laid down in the Income Tax Rules shall stand to be overridden by the specific provisions mentioned in the DTAA more so to the extent that the same is beneficial to the tax payer. And as such, since the DTAA does not specifically state to disallow the claim of FTC on mere delay in filing of Form 67, we would submit that the disallowance made by the CPC and further confirmed by the CIT(A) is arbitrary, unjustified and fit to be deleted. 8. That lastly, we would like to contend that this being a debatable issue, the disallowance made by CPC was uncalled as the same cannot be termed as an adjustment in terms of section 143(1). In a similar matter before the Hon'ble ITAT Kolkata Bench in the case of M/s Surendra steel Pvt Ltd Vs CPC in ITA No. 78/Kol/2022 dated 20/05/2022, it was held as below:- We have duly considered rival conte....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....l issue in case of Ms. Brinda Ramakrishna v. ITO [2022] 135 taxmann.com 358/193 ITD 840 held that non-furnishing of Form No. 67 before due date specified for furnishing return under section 139(1) was not fatal to claim for foreign tax credit - Whether Assessing Officer was to be directed to give credit for foreign tax as per Form No. 67 filed before Commissioner (Appeals) Held, yes [Paras 5 and 6] [In favour of assessee] * Ritesh Kumar Garg Vs ITO in ITA No. 261/JP/2022 dated 15/09/2022 - ITAT Jaipur Bench held that:- Held that filing of Form 67, in my view, is a procedural/directory requirement and is not a mandatory requirement. Therefore, violation of procedural norms does not extinguish the substantive right of claiming the credit of FTC. There are no conditions prescribed in DTAA that FTC can be disallowed for non compliance of any procedural provision, therefore, the provisions of DTAA override the provisions of the Act. As the assessee has vested right to claim the FTC under the tax treaty and the same cannot be disallowed for mere delay in compliance of a procedural provision. * Sanjeev Agarwal Vs DCIT in ITA No. 71/JP/2023 dated 10/05/2023 - ITA....