What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the filing of Form 67 is directory in nature, not mandatory. Even if filed belatedly, the assessee is eligible to claim FTC, and the CIT(A) was justified in allowing the claim.

The revenue appealed against the CIT(A)'s order allowing the assessee's claim for Foreign Tax Credit (FTC). The FTC was denied by the AO due to the belated filing of Form 67, which is required before filing the income tax return.

What were the issues?

Whether belated filing of Form 67 bars the claim for Foreign Tax Credit, and if the requirement to file Form 67 before the return of income is mandatory or directory.

ITO vs Sandip Choubey, Asansol | ITAT Kolkata 2023

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “SMC” BENCH, KOLKATA

Before: DR. MANISH BORAD, HON’BLE & SHRI SONJOY SARMA, HON’BLE

For Appellant: Ms. Aashi Agarwal, A/R

Hearing: 12/10/2023Pronounced: 31/10/2023

O R D E R

PER DR. MANISH BORAD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER :

The above captioned appeal is directed at the instance of the revenue against the order of the National Faceless Appeal Centre, (hereinafter the “ld. CIT(A)”) dt. 19/10/2022, passed u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (“the Act”) for the Assessment Year 2020-21.

The Registry has pointed out that there is a delay of 2 days in filing the present appeal by the revenue. Petition for condonation of delay is placed on record by revenue explaining the reasons. On perusing the same, we are convinced that the revenue was prevented by sufficient cause from filing this appeal in time. Accordingly, we condone the delay and proceed to admit the appeal for hearing.

The revenue has raised the following grounds of appeal:-

2 Assessment Year: 2020-21 Sandip Choubey “1. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A), NFAC, Delhi is justified in allowing the appeal of the assessee for statistical purpose by directing the A.O to consider the claim of FTC of Rs. 3,66,855/- as per Rule 128(8) & (9) wherein it is stated that FTC shall be allowed only when Form No. 67 shall be furnished on or before the date on which the return is furnished by the assessee and it should be treated as mandatory.

2. That the appellant craves leave to add, alter, amend, modify, substitute, delete and/or rescind all or any of the grounds of appeal on or before final hearing.”

At the outset, the ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that in view of the CBDT Circular No. 17/2019, dtd. 08/08/2019, this appeal of the revenue deserves to be dismissed for low tax effect as the tax effect involved in this appeal is less than Rs.50,00,000/-.

On the other hand, the ld. D/R submitted that though the tax effect is less than Rs.50,00,000/-, but the issue raised in this appeal falls under the exception mentioned in the CBDT Circular supra as the issues is regarding constitutional validity of Act or Rule. 6. We have heard rival contentions and perused the record placed before us. 7. We notice that the issue involved in this appeal is the claim of foreign tax credited of Rs. 3,66,855/- denied on the ground of belated submission of Form No. 67 which was mandatorily required to be filed before the filing of Income tax return. In absence of any submission by the ld. A/R, we find merit in the contention of the ld. D/R and are of the view that this appeal of the revenue does not deserve to be dismissed on account of low tax effect. 8. So far as the merits of the case are concerned, we find that the assessee was denied the foreign tax credit (FTC) of Rs.3,66,855/-. The assessee is a salaried employee of Pricewaterhouse Coopers Pvt. Ltd.

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(1), ASANSOL, ASANSOL vs. SANDIP CHOUBEY, ASANSOL

What did the Tribunal hold?

What were the facts?

What were the issues?

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Recent GST High Court judgments