TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (3) TMI 2168
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....der 2018-19, the ld. CIT(A) dismissed the appeal filed by the assessee and thereby upheld Order u/s 154 of the Act, passed by the ADIT, CPC, Bengaluru. Said dismissal of the appeal has led to filing of ITA No. 1338/JP/2024. 3. The second mentioned appeal- ITA No. 1339/JP/2024. Arises from order dated 20-09-2024, relating to assessment year 2019-20, whereby the ld CIT(A) has dismissed another appeal filed by the assessee and sustained the order under section 154 of the Act, and the intimation issued by CPC, Bengaluru u/s 143(1) of the Act. 4. Arguments heard. File perused. 5. As per facts available in the impugned orders the appellant is a resident of India, but also having salary from a concern in Italy. Income from capital gains a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....sment years under consideration, the AO, CPC, Bengaluru fell in error in not allowing the said deduction, in consonance with the provisions of Section 90 and 91 of the Act and Circular issued by CBDT in this regard. 9. As is available from the order passed by the ld. CIT(A), Form 67 was not furnished by the appellant within time allowed by the statutory rules. He observed that for the assessment year 2018-19, said form was presented and filed on 24-08-2021 whereas it should have been filed on or before 31-07-2018. As regards the assessment order 2019-19, said form was filed on 25-08-2021 whereas the same should have been filed on or before 31-07-2019. In other words, said two Forms for the said two assessment years came to be prese....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....w, while referring to the following decisions. 1. Vaibhav Singh vs ITO, Ward 1(2), ITAT, Jaipur Bench dated 02-01-2025; 2. Suresh Kumar Doodi vs ACIT, Circle-6, ITAT, Jaipur Bench dated 28-07-2023; 3. Shri Sanjeev Agarwal vs DCIT, Central Circle-4, Jaipur, ITAT, Jaipur Bench dated 10-05-2023; and 4. Shri Ritesh Kumar Garg vs ITO, Wared 4(2), Jaipur ITAT, Jaipur Bench dated 15-09-2022." 13. In Shri Sanjeev Agarwal vs DCIT, Central Circle-4, Jaipur, ITAT, Jaipur Bench dated 10-05-2023,(supra), having regard to the various decisions on subject, held that Form 67 even if filed by the assessee after the end of the relevant assessment year entitles the assessee to claim FTC. It was further held therein that ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nch, such appeal was allowed. Relevant extracts of the decision of Hon'ble ITAT is as under- ".....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....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ound that Form 67 was not submitted in respect of said years on or before the due date i.e. 31-07-2018 as regards 2018-19 and 31-07-2019 as regards assessment year 2019-20. 15. ld. CIT(A) did not admitted into evidence copies of Form(s) 67 during appellate proceedings for want of application for additional evidence, when the said documents was sought to be presented there. It is true that before the ld. CIT(A), the appellant was required to submit an application with the prayer that additional evidence be taken on record and considered. In this regard, it may be mentioned here that before us, the appellant has submitted copies of Forms 67. In the given facts and circumstances and for the effective adjudication of the matter in issu....