TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2024 (9) TMI 581
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....(A) has erred in law and on fact in not giving the relief claimed by the appellant u/s. 90/91 for tax paid in USA for Income from USA while processing the return of Income CPC in the order u/s. 143(1) of the Act as well as while passing the order u/s. 154 of the Act on the ground that the appellant failed to file form No. 67 before the time limit specified u/s 139(1) for A.Y. 2020-21 2. The Ld. CIT (A) has erred in law and on facts in not considering the fact that the income earned by the appellant in USA of US$ 55,353.35 (Equivalent Rs. 39,45,510/- ) on which the Tax of US$6,825.62 (equivalent to Rs. 4,86,257/- has been deducted in USA. The appellant had offered the income earned in USA to tax under Income from Other Sources and being eligible, claimed relief u/s. 90 of the Act as per DTAA between Government of India and USA and already taxed by the USA Government. 3. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in not appreciating the fact that filing of Form 67 is a procedural/directory requirement and violation of procedural norms does not extinguish the substantive right of claiming the credit of Foreign Tax Credit. 4. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in not ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tion. Aggrieved by the said reject the appellant has preferred this appeal and the GoA and SoF filed as a consequence were carefully considered. 4.2 The facts of the case and the compliance to the rules laid down u/r. 128 of the Income tax Rules, 1962 are carefully examined. The appellant had filed copy of Form No.67 which is dated 10.03.2021 and bears Receipt No. 2806094041100321. It is an admitted fact that Form No.67 has not been filed by the Appellant before the time limit specified u/s. 139(1) for AY 2020-21 and such omission is attempted to be justified by the Appellant on the pretext that filing of Form No.67 is not mandatory relying on certain judgements of the Tribunal. With due respect to the judicial authorities who had rendered in favour of the tax payers like that of the Appellant, it is brought on record that filing of Form No.67 is mandatory to claim the benefit of Foreign Tax Credit. 4.3 Taxes are paid in an alien nation, the particulars of which can never be verified by the Income tax Authorities. It is for such reason that Form No.67 which consists of 4 parts has a verification column, affirming that the claim of the FTC to the best of the knowledge and belief....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ounting to Rs. 39,45,510/- from USA on which TDS amounting to Rs. 48,625/- has been deducted by the US based Employer from such salary. In the return of income filed by the assessee for the impugned year under consideration, the assessee had duly declared his overseas salary in the return of income and had also claimed benefit of taxes paid (deducted by way of TDS) by the assessee outside India amounting to Rs. 4,86,257/- . In the return of income filed by the assessee for the impugned year under consideration, the assessee had also mentioned the Tax Payer Identification number in the return of income (schedule TR). Further, the Department has not challenged the genuineness of details of income/TDS paid by the assessee in overseas jurisdiction. The only reason why benefit of claim of TDS withheld by the US Employer was denied to the assessee was on the ground that there was a delay in filing of form No.67 by the assessee, which was required to be filed by the assessee on or before the due date of filing of return of income. We are of the considered view, that the assessee has duly filed form No.67 giving particulars of taxes withheld by the US based employer, albeit with a minor de....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... relevant rule 128 would have specifically provided that the FTC would be disallowed if the assessee does not file Form67 within the due dates prescribed under section 139(1). The assessee further submitted that there are many sections in the IT Act which specifically denied deduction or exemption or relief in case the return is not filed within the prescribed time frame. Attention was drawn toward section 80-AC, sec. 80-IA, sec. 10A, sec. 10B etc. However, such language is not used in rule 128(9). Therefore, such condition cannot be read into rule 128. In this regard, attention was drawn to the recent decision passed by the Coordinate Bench of the Tribunal, Bangalore Bench in the case of Ms. Brinda Ramakrishna v. ITO [2022] 135 taxmann.com 358/193 ITD 840 (Bang. - Trib.) which laid down the ratio that rule 128(9) does not provide for disallowance of Foreign Tax Credit in case of delay in filing Form67, and filing of Form67 is not mandatory but a directory requirement. In the said case, assessee had not filed Form67 before filing the return of income. Even such Form67 was not filed before the time-limit prescribed under section 139(4). When the FTC claimed by the assessee was rejec....