TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (1) TMI 1670
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ngaluru, u/s. 154 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the "Act"), dated 15.01.2022 for Assessment Year 2019-20. 2. Grounds taken by assessee are reproduced as under: "1. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, and in law, the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)] erred in upholding the deniat of Foreign Tax Credit (FTC) solely on the ground of delay in filing Form 67, without appreciating that such delay was due to genuine hardship. 2. That the learned CIT(A) failed to appreciate that Rule 128(9) of the Income-tax Rules, 1962 is directory and not mandatory, and non-filing or delayed filing of Form 67 cannot override the substantive right to claim credit of foreign taxe....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... appreciated the bona fide reasons for the delay in filing Form 67, including technical difficulties faced by the Appellant, being a Non-Resident Indian residing outside India with limited access to OTP based verification systems. 7. That the order passed under Section 250 upholding the denial of FTC is bad in law, contrary to the principles of natural justice, and liable to be quashed." 2.1. The sole issue involved in the present appeal is in respect of foreign tax credit claimed by the assessee which was not granted due to delay in the filing of Form - 67. 3. Brief facts of the case are that assessee is a non-resident Indian (NRI) and is engaged in teaching in Australia. Return of income was filed on 31.08,2019 reporting to....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....dia for the year under consideration, he by referring to Rule 128 of the Income-tax Rules, 1962 (The Rules) for filing of Form-67 and referring to various judicial precedents, dismissed the appeal of the assessee. In para - 6.10, ld. CIT(A) despite cognisance of the decision of Coordinate Bench of ITAT, Mumbai in the case of Sonakshi Sinha vs. CIT(A) in ITA No. 1704/Mum/2022, dated 20.09.2022 did not follow the said decision, by taking strength from the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Bharat Hari Singhania vs. CWT 73 Taxman 3 (SC). Aggrieved, assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. 5. Before us, ld. Counsel for the assessee reiterated the facts narrated above. We have heard both the parties and perused ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....or directory depends on legislative intent, purpose and the consequences of interpretation. If a mandatory reading results in injustice or defeats the objects of the provision, it should be read as directory. Reliance is also placed on the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sambhaji and others vs. Gangabai and others [2008] 17 SCC 117 where it has been held that "procedure cannot be a tyrant but only a servant. It is not an obstruction in the implementation of the provisions of the Act, but an aid. The procedures are handmaid and not the mistress. It is a lubricant and not a resistance. A procedural law should not ordinarily be construed as mandatory: the procedural law is always subservient to and is in aid to justice". ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....endment brought to Rule 128 to this effect is effective from 01.04.2022, not applicable to the present case. Coordinate Bench while giving its decision has placed reliance on other decisions of the Coordinate Bench in the case of 42 Hertz Software India Private Ltd. vs. ACIT [2022] 139 taxmann.com 448 (Bng), wherein it followed the earlier order in the case of Brinda Ramakrishna vs. ITO [2022] 135 taxmann.com 358 (Bng). It also referred to the decision of Binod Kumar Lakshmipati vs. CIT in ITA No. 680/Bng/2022, dated 06.09.2022. In all these decisions, it was held that "one of the requirement of Rule 128 for claiming FTC is that Form-67 is to be submitted by the assessee before filing of the returns and that this requirement cannot be treat....