SHYAM SUNDAR JENA,CUTTACK vs. ITO,WARD-1(1), CUTTACK

Shri Sandeep kumar Jena, Sandeep kumar Jena, ld AR appeared for the assessee and Shri the assessee and Shri S.C.Mohanty, Sr. S.C.Mohanty, Sr. DR appeared for the revenue.

It was submitted by ld AR that the assessee is an individual who derives income in the form of salary from Infosys. He is also deriving income from United State of America (USA). It was the submission that when he has filed his return of income disclosing entire salary receipts, he has claimed credit of tax paid to an extent of Rs.2,83,488/- under the head ‘TDS’. It was the submission that the amount consisted of Rs.2,33,328/-, which was the tax paid in USA. It was the submission that in the intimation issued, the benefit of TDS/tax deducted and paid in a foreign country has not been given benefit of. It was the submission that in an application under section 154 of the Act, the Assessing Officer has admitted that it was a mistake but had further held that the return had been filed in ITR-1 as against ITR-2, and therefore, there was no option to give credit of the relief u/s.90A. It was the submission that on appeal, the assessee had filed written submission before the ld CIT(A), NFAC but the CIT(A) had dismissed the appeal of the assessee recording that the assessee has not furnished any information. It was the submission that the assessee had filed written submission before the ld CIT(A), NFAC on 6.7.2024. ld AR placed the acknowledgement of the details filed which are as follows:

It was the submission that the ld CIT(A) has erred in not considering the written submission filed.

In reply, ld Sr DR vehemently supported the order of the AO and ld CIT(A). It was the submission that the return has not been filed in ITR-2 and the requisite tax recovery certificate (TRC) and the requisite Form 10F has also not been produced relevant to provisions of section 90A(5) of the Act.

We have considered the rival submissions. A perusal of the details filed by the assessee on 6.7.2024, which admittedly has not been considered by the ld CIT(A) shows that necessary TRC from the foreign tax authorities nor the requisite form in respect of the claim of credit of tax recovery in the foreign country has been produced before the ld CIT(A). The same is also not before us. This being so, we find no error in the order passed u/s.154 by the Assessing Officer, which is also upheld by the ld CIT(A)

In the result, appeal of the assessee stands dismissed.