TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (6) TMI 2142
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....7406378(1) dated 07.08.2024 for the A.Y. 2021-22 arising out of order passed 154 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short 'Act') dated 25.05.2023. 2. At the outset, it is noticed from the appeal record that there is a delay of 51 days in filing the appeal before the Tribunal. Explaining the reasons for belated filing of the appeal, the Ld. Authorised Representative [hereinafter "Ld.AR"] drew our attention to the affidavit filed by the assessee along with a petition seeking for condonation of delay and read out the contents of the petition which is as under: "The appellant respectfully submits the following for the condonation of delay in filing the appeal: The order under Section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, was passed....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....3. On perusal of the contents of the affidavit filed by the assessee as well as the submission of the Ld. AR, we find that the assessee is prevented by a reasonable and sufficient cause in filing the appeal beyond the prescribed time limit with a delay of 51 days. Therefore, we hereby condone the delay of 51 days in filing the appeal before the Tribunal and proceed to adjudicate the appeal on merits in the following paragraphs. 4. Brief facts of the case are, assessee being a Non-Resident Individual filed his return of income on 30.09.2021 admitting a total income of Rs. 31,51,720/- for the A.Y. 2021-22. While filing the return of income assessee also claimed relief under section 90 of the Act for Rs. 5,73,915/- by filing Form No. 67 bel....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s Appeal Centre ["NFAC"], vide order passed u/s 250, dt. 07.08.2024, is contrary to the facts of the case and the provisions of law. 2. The learned CIT(A) erred in law and on facts in disallowing the foreign tax credit solely on the ground that Form 67 was not filed within the stipulated time under Rule 128(9) of the IT Rules, 1962 as filing of such form is directory and not mandatory. 3. The learned CIT(A) failed to appreciate that the appellant had filed Form 67 before the application u/s 154 of the IT Act was filed, rectifying the original return. 4. The Ld. CIT(A) erred in not considering judicial precedents that have held that procedural delays should not affect the substantive rights of the taxpayer. ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....022. iii. Baburao Atluri v. DCIT in ITA No. 108/HYD/2022 dated 22.07.2022. iv. Shri Ritesh Kumar Garg v. ITO in ITA No. 261/JP/2022 dated 15.09.2022. v. Purushothama Reddy v. ADIT (Int. Taxation)-1 in ITA No.526/HYD/2022 dated 05.12.2022. vi. Atanu Mukherjee v. ITO in ITA No. 439/KOL/2022 dated 20.12.2022. vii. Ashish Agrawal v. ITO in ITA No. 337/HYD/2023 dated 26.09.2023 viii CES Limited v. DCIT, CIRCLE - 1(1) dated 22.03.2024 ix. Ms. Brinda Rama Krishna v. ITO - 5(3)(1) in ITA No.454/Bang/2021 dated 17.11.2021. 9. He therefore pleaded that many judicial pronouncements as cited in various case laws above, have held that filing of Form No. 67 is directory and not mandatory. ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....wherein Rule 128(9) is substituted, which is reproduced below: - "(9) The statement in Form No. 67 referred to in clause i) of sub rule (8) and the certificate or the statement referred to in clause (ii) of sub-rule (8) shall be furnished on or before the end of the assessment year relevant to the previous year in which the income referred to in sub-rule (1) has been offered to tax or assessed to tax in India and the return for such assessment year has been furnished within the time specified under sub-section (1) or sub section (4) of section 139. Provided that where the return has been furnished under sub section (8A) of section 139, the statement in Form No. 67 referred to in clause i) of sub-rule (8) and the certificat....