TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2024 (2) TMI 1490
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....by the Assessing Officer, under Section 143(1) of the Act for Assessment Year 2018-19. 2. We have heard the rival submissions made by the respective parties and we have also perused the relevant materials available on record. 3. The appellant was a salaried individual and was employed with Shell India Market Private Limited and was sent on an international assignment to Australia from 27th November, 2017 to 14th November, 2018. As the appellant worked in Australia, he was required to offer salary income earned therein for the period commencing from 27th November, 2017 to 14th November, 2018 to tax in Australia and accordingly tax was duly paid on the salary earned in Australia. Naturally, the tax on such salary income earned by the ap....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ued for the return of income filed under Section 139(5) of the Act on 11th March, 2019 was rejected, particularly, on this ground that the JCIT has not been conferred with any such delegation of power to codone the delay in filing Form No.67. It was further mentioned in the order impugned before us that the appellant, in that event, requires to approach the appropriate competent authority to get the delay in filing Form No.67 condoned. At the time of hearing of the instant appeal, the Ld. Counsel appearing for the assessee before us stated that the issue is squarely covered by the judgment passed in the Co-ordinate Bench in the case of Kewal Niraj Hutheesing vs. ITO in ITA No. 559/Ahd/2022 for A.Y. 2019-20, the copy whereof is annexed with ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... & Fertilizers Ltd. vs. DCIT, reported in (1992 Supp (1) SCC 21) was followed. The relevant observation whereof is as follows: "7. Heard both the parties and perused all the relevant material available on record. It is pertinent to note that the assessee has paid the taxes on the income earned in United Kingdom in that country and assessee is asking for credit of the same while filing the return of income. The CIT(A) held that the assessee has not filed Form 67 before time allowed under Section 139(5) of the Act and therefore, Form 67 is non-est in law does not categorically discussed the assessee's case as the assessee has already paid taxes in UK and as per Article 24(2) of the DTAA between India and UK the foreign income cannot ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the claim of FTC. 12. It was further submitted that even in the context of 80-IA(7), 10A(5) etc, wherein there is specific provision for disallowance of deduction/exemption if audit report is not filed along with the return, various High Courts have taken a view that filing of audit report is directory and not mandatory. Reliance in this regard was placed on the following cases: ♦ CIT v. Axis Computers (India) (P.) Ltd. [2009] 178 Taxman 143 (Delhi) ♦ PCIT, Kanpur v. Surya Merchants Ltd. [2016] 72 taxmann.com 16 (Allahabad) ♦ CIT, Central Circle v. American Data Solutions India (P.) Ltd [2014] 45 taxmann.com 379 (Karnataka) ♦ CIT-II v. Mantec Consultants (P.) Ltd. [2009] ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....TC. He also submitted that the issue was debatable and cannot be subject matter of decision in sec.154 proceedings which are restricted in scope to mistakes apparent on the face of the record. 15. In his rejoinder, the learned counsel for the Assessee submitted that Form No. 67 was available before the AO when the intimation u/s. 143(1) of the Act dated 28-5- 2020 was passed. He pointed out that the AO or the CIT(A) did not dismiss the Assessee application for rectification u/s. 154 of the Act on the ground that the issue was debatable but rather the decision was given that the relevant rule was mandatory and hence non-furnishing of Form No. 67 before the due date u/s. 139(1) of the Act was fatal to the claim for FTC. 16. ....