TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2024 (6) TMI 1342
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s of the case, the delay in condoned. 3. The brief facts leading to this case is this that the assessee, an individual, employed in M/s. Evry India Pvt. Ltd. and earned gross total income of Rs. 31,46,189/- from his employment being exercised in India. During the same period, the appellant travelled to M/s. Evry A/S (hereinafter referred to as 'Norway company') for an assignment and stayed and exercised his employment in Norway during the period commencing from 10.09.2018 to 18.10.2018 and from 12.11.2018 to 10.03.2019. During the stay at Norway, the appellant earned a sum of 2,69,647/- in Norwegian Krone (NOK) in Indian currency Rs. 20,68,435/-. Further on the same tax of 59,709/- NOK i.e., Rs. 3,21,479/- was paid which is at 15.54% as per the tax assessment notice for 2018 & 2019 issued by the Norway tax department. 4. On the basis of such earned income and payment of tax, the assessee filed its return of income on 31.08.2019 declaring total income at Rs. 26,87,110/- and claimed relief of Rs. 3,21,479/- u/s. 90 of the Act. The same was, however, dismissed by the Ld.AO. 5. The assessee preferred an appeal before the First Appellate Authority whi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....as also been considered, but the same too is not supported by evidence. Since the appellant has made the claim of foreign tax credit in his return of income and has filed the Form 67, it can be easily concluded that all the relevant details were duly available with him at the time of filing of return of income. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case, the undersigned is of the considered opinion that there was no sufficient cause which prevented the appellant from filing of the appeal before the limitation date and hence. the reasons which have been put forward to explain the delay are not sufficient. The appellant has relied on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Land Acquisition vs MST Katiji and Others 167 ITR 471 wherein the Apex Court held that the delay in preferring the applications for condoning the delay is required to be condoned in the interest of justice liberally so as to advance substantial justice provided that there can be no gross negligence or deliberate inaction or lack of bona fides imputable to the parties seeking condonation of delay. However, in the instant case, the inordinate delay is attributable to the gross ne....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....g of appeal has not been condoned, consequently the appeal of the appellant becomes not-est and therefore the same is not admitted. 3. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances and the decision of the Honourable Courts and also the fact that since the appeal of the appellant is not admitted, the grounds of appeal raised by the appellant are not adjudicated on merit and the appeal is dismissed." 6. Before us the assessee filed each of the copy of the affidavit shown by him as an employee of M/s. Tietoevry India Pvt. Ltd. (formerly registered as M/s. Evry India Pvt. Ltd.) and another affidavit shown by Shri Shyam Sundar Pattabiraman claimed to be the Chief Financial Officer of M/s. EVRY India Pvt. Ltd., the contents whereof is as follows. 7. In support of the order impugned in rejecting explanation in regard to delay in filing appeal, the Ld.DR relied upon the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in case of Majji Sannemma @ Sanyasirao vs. Reddy Sridevi & Ors. in Civil Appeal No. 7696 of 2021 dated 16.12.2021, a copy whereof has also been submitted before us. 8. We have heard the submissions made by the respective parties and we have also perused the relevant mater....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... is inaction then there cannot be any justified ground for condoning the delay even by imposing conditions. It is observed that each application for condonation of delay has to be decided within the framework laid down by this Court. It is further observed that if courts start condoning delay where no sufficient cause is made out by imposing conditions then that would amount to violation of statutory principles and showing utter disregard to legislature." 11. The "sufficient cause" in this particular case of Basawaraj and Anr. Vs. Special Land Acquisition Officer reported in (2013) 14 SCC 81 mentioned in the above judgment relied upon by the Ld.DR has been said not to be interpreted liberally if negligence, in action or lack of bona fide is attributed to the party. It was further mentioned in the said judgment that the discretion to condone the delay has to be exercised judicially based on facts and circumstances of each case. 12. In the instant case, we, with our humble understanding, find that the sufficient cause pleaded by the assessee before the First Appellate Authority and before us is in affirmity, in favour of the assessee without finding any deliberate delay or gros....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
...., I travelled to M/s. Evry 123 Mayur A/S (a 'Norway company') for an assignment. I stayed and exercised my employment in Norway during the period 10.09.2018 to 18.10.2018 and from 12.11.2018 to 10.03.2019 (67 days). 2. During my stay in Norway I carned a sum of 2.69,647/- Norwegian Krone i.c., Rs.20,68.435/- . I paid a sum of 59,709/- NOK i.c. Rs.3.21.479/- was paid which is 15.54% as per the tax assessment notice for 2018 & 2019 issued by the Norway tax department. 3. 3. I filed my original return on 31.08.2019 declaring a total income of Rs.26.87.110/-. While filing the original return of income I claimed the tax relief of Rs.3,21,479/- under section 90 of the Act. While filing the return of income I inadvertently missed to file form 67 as per section 90 r/w rule 128 of the Income-tax Rules, 1962. Upon processing of the return of income, an intimation u/s 143(1) of the Act was received by the appellant on 23.03.2021 disallowing the relief claimed under section 90 of the Act. Later I filed the form 67 on 02.06.2023. 4. Along with me few others received the intimation disallowing the foreign tax credit. Upon receiving the int....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....सतà¥à¤¯à¤®à¥‡à¤µ जयते Government of Karnataka e-Stamp Certificate No. Certificate Issued Date Account Reference : IN-KA83054475656071V : 28-Dec-2023 12:58 PM : NONACC (FI)/ kacrsfl08/ RAJARAJESHWARI NAGAR1/KA-JY SUBIN-KAKACRSFL0832175424647321V : HANUMANTAPPA GIRIYAPUR MANJUNATHA Unique Doc. Reference Purchased by : Description of Document Description Consideration Price (Rs.) First Party Article 4 Affidavit : AFFIDAVIT : 0 (Zero) : EVRY INDIA PVT LTD Second Party Stamp Duty Paid By Stamp Duty Amount(Rs.) : : HANUMANTAPPA GIRIYAPUR MANJUNATHA HANUMANTAPPA GIRIYAPUR MANJUNATHA : 100 NOTARE (One Hundred only) MOHAMMER HUSSA Please write or type below this line GOV Pag OF * INDIA dit Ca & AFFIDAVIT 1) I, Shyam Sundar Pattabiraman aged about 46 years, son of S Pattabiraman identified by PAN AIVPP0215B presently residing at Snehanjali Residency, Flat no. 102, 3rd Main, S G Palya, C V Raman nagar, Bangalore: 560093 do solemnly affirm and declare as under: Private Statutory Alert 1. The auth....