TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (9) TMI 1069
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... ("the Act") dated 16.01.2026 is bad in law and on facts. 2. That no prior intimation was given to the Appellant of the adjustment, by way of denial of credit for foreign tax paid, as required under the first Proviso to Clause (a) of Sub-section (1) of Section 143 of the Act and, therefore, the order under Section 143(1)(a) dated 21.03.2020, passed by the Centralized Processing Centre, without requisite prior intimation of the adjustment, is bereft of jurisdiction, void ab-initio and liable to be quashed. 3. That no notice of defect in the income tax return filed under Sub-section (1) of Section 139 was given to the Appellant, as provided under Sub-section (9) of section 139 of the Act and, therefore, the order under Section 143(1)(a) dated 21.03.2020, passed by the Centralized Processing Centre is bereft of jurisdiction, void ab-initio and liable to be quashed. 4. That the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred on facts and in law not to allow credit for the taxes paid by the Appellant on the income earned in United States of America (USA), although there is no specific provision for such adjustment under Clause (a) of Sub-section (1) of Section ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e context of rectification under section 154. 12. That the denial of credit for foreign tax, undisputedly paid by the Appellant, results in double taxation and causes hardship contrary to law and equity, which relief ought to be granted to the Appellant in whichever way the matter is looked at. 13. That the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred on facts and in law not to allow credit for the taxes undisputedly paid by the Appellant in USA, allowable under Section 90 and the India-USA DTAA, and thus failed to delete the unjustified and illegal tax demand against the Appellant and deliver substantive justice. That the Appellant craves leave to add, amend, alter, remove, rescind, forgo or withdraw any of the above grounds of appeal, which are without prejudice to one another, before or at the time of hearing of the appeal in the interest of natural justice. That the above grounds of appeal are without prejudice to one another." 3. The assessee has claimed that she is USA citizen, and during the year under consideration, she was resident in India. Short question which has arisen in this appeal is with respect to non-grant of foreign tax c....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Tax Rule, 1962. Further, as per ld. CIT(A), the said mistake cannot be rectified u/s 154 of the 1961 Act as the same is not a mistake apparent from records. 5. Still aggrieved, the assessee filed second appeal with the Tribunal. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that non filing of Form No. 67 is a procedural defect, and filing of Form No. 67 is directory in nature and not mandatory. The ld. Counsel for the assessee relied upon the order of the Tribunal in the case of the assessee itself in ITA no. 6404/Del/2025 dated 27.03.2025 for assessment year 2019-20, wherein the Tribunal by relying on judgment and order in the case of Deepak Pragjibhai Gondaliya v. PCIT reported in (2025) 175 taxmann.com 985(Guj) held that filing of Form No. 67 is directory in nature and not mandatory, and allowed the relief to the assessee. It was submitted that in the instant case before us, Form No. 67 was not filed within stipulated time as prescribed, while the same was filed on 08.02.2023. It was submitted that no defect notice was issued by Revenue u/s 139(9) of the 1961 Act. It was submitted that no intimation was given to the assessee as is contemplated u/s 143(1)(a) of the 1961 Act, befo....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he proceedings for verification of the foreign tax credit, but it appears from documents on record that no such proceedings were initiated/commenced by the jurisdictional AO. It also emerges from records before us that no notice u/s 139(8) of the 1961 Act was issued by the AO/CPC, before disallowing credit of foreign tax credit. It also transpired that no notice as provided by proviso to Section 143(1) was issued by Revenue to the assessee, before disallowing credit of foreign tax credit. The assessee filed second rectification application u/s 154 after filing of Form No. 67, which stood dismissed by the AO. The Ld. CIT(A) also dismissed appeal filed by the assessee. We have observed that the Jurisdictional High Court in the case of Real Time data Services (P.) Ltd. v. PCIT, reported in [2026]183 taxmann.com 701(Delhi), has held as under: "6. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 7. Admittedly, the petitioner has not furnished Form No. 67 up to the due date of filing return and it realised such fault only when its return was processed and when its Foreign Tax Credit of Rs. 1,01,34,300/-being TDS on foreign receipts was not allowed by the AO. On inquiry, it found ....