TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2024 (12) TMI 558
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d Form No. 67 on 12.7.2018 which is beyond the time allowed in terms of Rule 128(9) of the IT Rules. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied, the present appeal has been preferred by the assessee before us. 4. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee challenges the impugned order of AO confirmed by the Ld. CIT(A) by stating that the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in not granting credit of foreign taxation paid and should have been duly allowed under Article 23 of the India-Netherland Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement (DTAA) read with Section 90 of the Act. He has also challenged the levying of additional interest u/s 234A, 234B and 234C of the act. 5. Contrary to that, the Ld. D.R supports the impugned order. 6. Upon hearing the rival submissions, we have perused the record and find that the following facts: i) The assessee was on assignment to Netherland during FY 2019-20 from 01.04.2019 to 31.01.2020 and had received salary in Netherlands form Tata Steel Netherland Services B. V. (Tata Steel Netherlands) during the said period. ii) The assessee had received salary income in India from Tata Steel Limited (Tata Steel India) during FY 2019-20. iii) The assessee to be....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ta in the case of Anindya Sarka vs. ACIT, CPC in ITA No. 1345/Kol/2024 for AY 2020-21 dated 26.07.2024. The operative part is reproduced as under: "7. The Ld. DR supported the order of the Ld. CIT(A). We have gone through the rival contention and also examined the facts. It was submitted before the Ld. CIT(A) by the assessee that the rerun of income was filed on 25.12.2020 and on 26.12.2020 he had submitted the Form No. 67 after receiving the communication from the e-filing team, Income Tax Department on 25.12.2020 that the return of income was not accompanied by Form No. 67 as mandated by law. Subsequently, since the credit was not allowed, he filed rectification application and Form No. 67 on 03.07.2022 and prior to that rectification requests on 21.05.2022 and on 07.06.2022 were also filed. The credit was not allowed since From No. 67 was filed beyond the date for filing the return of income under Section 139(1) of the Act. In the case of Mahua Bagchi Vs. ACIT (supra) relied upon by the assessee, it is held as under: "5. After hearing rival contentions and perusing the material on record, we find that the assessee served abroad and some foreign tax to the tune ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....salary income earned for services rendered in Australia for the period from December 2017 to March 2018 to tax in India. The Assessee claimed foreign tax credit ("FTC") for taxes paid in Australia. 3. There is no dispute that the Assessee is entitled to claim FTC. Rule 128 of the Income Tax Rules, 1962 (Rules) provides for giving FTC and reads thus: "Foreign Tax Credit. 128. (1) An assessee, being a resident shall be allowed a credit for the amount of any foreign tax paid by him in a country or specified territory outside India, by way of deduction or otherwise, in the year in which the income corresponding to such tax has been offered to tax or assessed to tax in India, in the manner and to the extent as specified in this rule: Provided that in a case where income on which foreign tax has been paid or deducted, is offered to tax in more than one year, credit of foreign tax shall be allowed across those years in the same proportion in which the income is offered to tax or assessed to tax in India." One of the requirements of Rule 128 for claiming FTC is provided by Rule 128 (8) & (9) of the Rules and the same reads thus: "(8) Credit of any foreign tax shall be all....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... AO. The CIT(A) held that the Assessee has not filed Form 67 before the time allowed under section 139(5) of the Act, and therefore Form 67 is nonest in law. The CIT(A) also held that provisions of Rule 128 are mandatory in nature. The CIT(A)rejected the contention of the Assessee that filing of Form 67 is a procedural requirement and noncompliance thereof does not disentitle the Assessee of the FTC. 16. I have given a careful consideration to the rival submissions. I agree with the contentions put forth by the learned counsel for the Assessee and hold that (i) Rule 128(9) of the Rules does not provide for disallowance of FTC in case of delay in filing Form No.67; (ii) filing of Form No.67 is not mandatory but a directory requirement and (iii) DTAA overrides the provisions of the Act and the Rules cannot be contrary to the Act. I am of the view that the issue was not debatable and there was only one view possible on the issue which is the view set out above. I am also of the view that the issue in the proceedings u/s. 154 of the Act, even if it involves long drawn process of reasoning, the answer to the question can be only one and in such circumstances, proceedings u/s. 1....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... a credit against the tax payable in India but limited to the proportion of Indian tax Neither section 90 nor the DTAA provides that FTC shall be disallowed for noncompliance with any procedural requirement. Foreign Tax Credit is an assessee's vested right as per Article 25[2](a) of the DNA road wat Section 90 and same cannot be disallowed for noncompliance with procedural requirement that is prescribed in the rules. 10. Further, we would like to mention that rule 128(9) provides that Form No. 67 should be filed on or before the due date of filing the return of income as prescribed u/s 139(1) of the Act. However, the rule nowhere provides that if the said Form No. 67 is not filed within the required time frame, the relief as sought by the assessee u/s 90 of the Act would be denied. It is therefore evident that if the intention of the legislature were to deny the foreign tax credit, either the Act or the rules would have specifically provided that the foreign tax credit would be disallowed if the assessee does not file Form No. 67 within the due date prescribed under section 139(1) of the Act. We further note that Filing of Form No. 67 is a procedural/directory requirem....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....hat the Assessee is entitled to claim FTU On perusal of provisions of Rule 128 (8) & (9), it is clear that, one of the requirements of Rule 128 for claiming FTC is that Form 67 is to be submitted by assessee before filing of the returns. In our view, this requirement cannot be treated as mandatory, rather it is directory in nature. This is because, Rule 128(9) does not provide for disallowance of FTC in case of delay in filing Form No 67 This view is fortified by the decision of coordinate bench of this Tribunal in case of Ms. Brindu Kumar Krishna us. ITO in ITA no. 454/ Bang/2021 by order dated 17/11/2021. 7. It's a trite law that DTAA overrides the provisions of the Act and the Rules, as held by various High Courts, which has also been approved by Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Engineering Analysis Centre of Excellence (P) Ltd reported im (2021) 432 ITR 471. 8. We accordingly, hold that FTC cannot be denied to the assessee. Assessee is directed to file the relevant details/evidences in support of its claim. We thus remand this issue back to the Ld.AO to consider the claim of assessee in accordance with law, based on the verification carried out in resp....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....States, India shall allow as a deduction from the tax on the income of the resident an amount equal to the income tax paid in the United States, whether directly or by deduction in view of this provision over riding the provisions of the Act, according to us, Rule 128(9) of the Rules has to be read down in conformity thereof Rule 128(9) of the Rules cannot be read in isolation. Rules must be read in the context of the Act and the DTAA impacting the rights, liabilities and disabilities of the parties. 13. In the case of Purushothama Reddy Vankıreddy (supra) also the Co-ordinate Bench of the Tribunal, in the similar circumstances, allowed the appeal of assessee for FTC claim. Respectfully following the same, we are of the considered opinion that the decisions relied upon by the assessee are applicable to the facts of the case and the grounds raised by the assessee are accordingly allowed. 14. In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed." 16. We have also gone through the decision of the Hon'ble Madras High Court in the case of Duraiswamy Kumaraswamy us. PCIT (supra) and found that the facts are identical to the facts of the case of the assessee and the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....to the FTC of the petitioner. However, the PTC was rejected by the respondent, which is not proper and the same is not in accordance with law. Therefore, the impugned order is liable to be set aside. 13. Accordingly the impugned order dated 25.01.2022 is set aside. While setting aside the impugned order, this Court remits the matter back to the respondent to make reassessment by taking into consideration of the FTC filed by the petitioner on 02.02.2021. The respondent is directed to give due credit to the Kenya income of the petitioner and pass the final assessment order. Further, it is made clear that the impugned order is set wade only to the extent of disallowing of FTC clam made by the petitioner und hence, the first respondent is directed to consider only on the aspect of rejection of FTC clam within a period of 8 weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order" 17. Respectfully following the order of the Hon'ble Madras High Court in the case of Duraiswamy Kumaraswamy vs. PCIT (supra) and concurring with the views held by the coordinate Benches of the Tribunal (supra), we hold that merely because the assessee could not file Form No. 67 within the pre....