TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2024 (9) TMI 723
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s 90 of the Act denied: 1.1 The learned ADDL/JCIT(A) has erred in confirming the Order of Centralized Processing Center ("CPC"), Bengaluru by denying the relief claimed under section 90 of the Act of INR 26,406/- in the original return of income. 1.2 The learned ADDL/JCIT(A) has erred in denying the relief on the ground that the Appellant has not filed Form-67 within the due date of filing of return of income prescribed under section 139(1) of the Act. 1.3 The learned ADDL/JCIT(A) has erred in not appreciating that the Appellant had filed original return of income under section 139(8A) of the Act on 31.03.2023 for the assessment year 2020-21. 1.4 The Appellant filed Form No.67 on 31.03.2023 (date of order 29.12.2023 filed before pro....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....wance of Rs. 17,559/- on account of TDS credit claimed by the assessee, but not allowed by CPC, Bangalore. 5. The matter was carried in first appeal before the ld. JCIT(A), Jaipur and both the additions has been sustained due to reasons contained in the appellate order. The relevant portion in the appellate order para 5.1.2 to 5.1.3 are reproduced below: "5.1.2 . In view of the above, while passing intimation order u/s 143(1) of the Act, the AO (CPC) denied the assessee's claim of foreign tax credit of Rs. 26406/- on the ground that the assessee did not file ITR and Form No.67 within due date specified. At this juncture, it may be noted that, as per Rule 128 (9), the statement in Form No. 67 and the certificate or the statement shall....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....hat furnishing of Form No. 67 beyond the time limit prescribed u/s 139(1) does not disentitle the assessee for claim of FTC. He further submitted that the filing of Form No. 67 is not mandatory but only directory in nature and it is sufficient compliance if the said Form is filed alongwith the return of income and the same is before the AO at the time of assessment. On this issue, he relied upon the judgment of the Coordinate Benches of ITAT: a) In the case of Ms. Brinda Ramakrishna v. ITO [2022] 135 taxmann.com 358/193 ITD 840 (Bang. - Trib.). b) The ITAT SMC Bench Mumbai in ITA No. 1458/MUM/2023 in the case of Mr. Yogesh Dnyandeo Kinage V. Assistant Director of Income-tax, CPC. 6.2 He further relied on the judgment of the ITAT, Mumba....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... not as per provisions of the Rules 128 Sub-rule (9) which provides that Form No, 67 will have to be furnished on or before the due date of filing of ITR u/s 139(1) of the Act. Since the assessee has violated the provisions of Rule 128 (9) of the IT Rules 1962 for claim of FTC, cannot be allowed to the assessee. 8. Regarding the next issue, in respect of TDS credit. He submitted that as per provisions of section 139(8A), the updated return needs to be accompanied with proof of payment of additional tax u/s 140(B), and in this case the same has not been done. Moreover, he argued that in this updated return it is seen, that the appellant has not offered the entire income for taxation and has not also claimed the entire TDS in updated return ....