2025 (5) TMI 822

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....0.01.2025 wherein the appeal filed by the assessee against the intimation passed u/s. 143(1) dated 17.3.2021 by the CPC, Bangalore denying foreign tax credit of Rs. 76,51,818 for non-filing of Form 67, was dismissed. 2. The assessee is aggrieved with the same and has preferred this appeal raising several grounds as under:- "Ground No. 1: Non grant of Foreign Tax Credit ('FTC') of Rs. 76,51,818 On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. Additional/ Joint Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) - 6, Delhi. ADDL/JCIT(A)] has erred in confirming the action of the Ld. Assessing Officer, CPC (Ld. AO) of making the adjustment in the Intimation under Section 143(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ('Act&....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....m 67 in support of FTC was e-filed and e-verified on 23 July 2020 On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. ADDL/JCIT(A) erred in stating in Para 6.1 of his Order that Form 67 in support of claim of FTC in the Revised Return of Income was not filed. It is prayed that Form 67 in support of claim of FTC in the Revised Return of Income was e-filed and e-verified on 23 July 2020 as - c -: gyred by Ld. ADDL/JCIT(A) himself in the subsequent paragraph. Ground No. 3: Appellant had approached the Ld. ADDL/JCIT(A) in an appeal and not for condonation of delay in filing of Form 67 On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. ADDL/JCIT(A) erred in stating in his Order that the ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....t as required by the proviso to Section 143(1)(a) of the Act. Hence, the order of the Ld. ADDL/JCIT(A) is contrary to the following orders of Hon'ble ITAT relied upon during the Appellate Proceedings before the Ld. ADDL/JCIT(A): * Arham Pumps v. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (CPC), Bengaluru (ITA No.206/Ahd/2021) * Ernst & Young Merchant banking Services LLP Vs. ADIT, CPC, [ITA No. 2333/Mum/2022] It is, therefore, prayed that the Ld. JAO be directed to allow FTC of Rs. 76,51,818. Ground No. 5: Orders of the Hon'ble High Court/ ITAT not followed by the Ld. ADDL/JCIT(A) On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. ADDL/JCIT(A) has erred in not following Judicial Pronou....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... In the return of income assessee claimed tax relief of Rs. 3,67,548, but did not file any Form 67. As the assessee was to include his salary earned during the deputation period and consequent tax paid in UK is also eligible for relief, he revised his return of income on 30.7.2020 at a total income of Rs. 3,78,60,990 and claimed tax relief of Rs. 76,51,818. He did file Form 67 along prior to filing revised return i.e. on 23/07/2022. The CPC considered the revised return of the assessee, determined the total income of assessee at Rs. 3,78,60,990, however did not grant any credit for foreign taxes paid. The intimation u/s. 143(1) was passed on 17.3.2021. 4. The assessee preferred an appeal before the ld. CIT(Appeals) wherein it was submitt....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....wer to condone the delay with the ld. CIT(Appeals), his order could not be found fault with. 8. We have carefully considered the rival contentions and perused the order of the ld. lower authorities. The assessee-individual filed his original return of income on 31.8.2019, claimed partial foreign tax credit. Subsequently he filed revised return on 30.7.2020 and prior to that on 23.7.2020 he filed Form 67 as per Rule 128 of the I.T. Rules wherein he claimed foreign tax credit of Rs. 76,51,818. Form 67 is placed at page 20 to 62 of the PB. When this revised return was processed u/s. 143(1), the above foreign tax credit was denied to the assessee. On appeal, the ld. CIT(Appeals) did not grant him credit, but recommended to approach the PCIT ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....e due date of filing of original return and thus is not in accordance with Rule 128(8) of the I.T. Rules. 12. However Hon'ble High courts have held that the time limit prescribed u/r 128 is merely directory and not mandatory. In a Writ Petition No.5834/2022 in the case of Duraiswamy Kumaraswamy v. PCIT, Chennai dated 06.10.2023 for AY 2019-20 where the foreign tax credit was denied to the assessee, the Hon'ble Madras High Court held that filing of Form 67 in terms of Rule 128 of the I.T. Rules is only directory in nature. Therefore, if such Form is available at the time of processing of the return, the assessee should be granted the credit for the same. Similarly, the Hon'ble Madras High Court in 168 taxmann.com 622 held that time limit ....