TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2022 (11) TMI 1587
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the Ld. CIT(A) had been partly allowed the appeal filed by the Appellant against the Rectification Order, dated 31.07.2020 passed under Section 154 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act"). 2. That the appellant has raised three grounds of appeal, all, directed against the order of CIT(A) confirming the action of Assistant Director of Income Tax, CPC, Bangalore in rejecting the claim of the Appellant for the foreign tax credit of INR 4,30,399/- under Section 90 of the Act in respect of taxes paid in Singapore. 3. The relevant facts, in brief, are the Appellant was working in India with Asian Paints Ltd (hereinafter referred to as "the Company"). During the Financial Year 2017-18 the Appellant was transferred ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the Act which was dismissed vide order dated 31.07.2020 passed by the CIT(A). 6. Being aggrieved, the Appellant preferred appeal before CIT(A). The CIT(A) disposed off the appeal vide order, dated 22.11.2021, holding as under: "5.3 The claim of the appellant was duly considered in the light of the documents submitted and the same is not found correct. Firstly, the foreign tax has not been paid by the appellant, but by his foreign employer. Hence, the appellant is not eligible for claiming the credit of the tax paid by his employer, by way of treating the same as his income. Further, the Form 67 was required to be filed before the due date of filing of Income Tax Return u/s 139(1) of the I.T. Act. In this case the same has been ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....icle 25 of the Tax Treaty would override the same. Article 25 of the Tax Treaty do not provide for furnishing of Form 67 on or before a specified date as a condition precedent to claiming FTC. 9. The Learned Authorised Representative for Appellant contended that the FTC of INR 4,30,399/- was claimed by the Appellant as per the provisions of Section 90(2) of the Act read with Article 25 of the Tax Treaty. Even if, for the sake of arguments, it is taken that Section 90 of the Act read with Rule 128(9) of the Income Tax Rules, 1962 (For Short "Rules") provide for disallowance of FTC where Form 67 is filed beyond due date of tax return as per Section 139(1) of the Act, the Tax Treaty would override the Act, and the Appellant would be entitle....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Appellant. He submitted that the FTC is to be allowed as per the procedure prescribed by the provisions of the Act and rules made thereunder. 11. We have carefully considered the rival contentions and perused all the judgments and documents relied upon by the parties. The issue involved in the present appeal is whether Appellant can be denied FTC on the ground that Form 67 has been filed by the Appellant after the due date specified for furnishing the return of income under Section 139(1) of the Act. We note that the aforementioned issue has been dealt with and decided in favour of the assessee by the Coordinate Bench of this Tribunal in the case of Sonakshi Sinha vs. CIT(A) NFAC, Delhi [ITA No. 1704/Mum/2022]. The relevant extract of t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s and that 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. Same view is also taken by a coordinate division bench in Vinodkumar Lakshmipathi v. CIT(A) [IT Appeal No. 680/Bang/2022, 6-9-2022. It is well settled that while laying down a particular procedure, if no negative or adverse consequences are contemplated for non-adherence to such procedure, the relevant provision is normally not taken to be mandatory and is considered to be purely directory. Admittedly, Rule 128 does not prescribe denial of credit of FTC. Further the Act i.e. section 90 or 91 also do not prescribe timeline for filing of such....