SWAROOPA SIMHADRI,RANGA REDDY vs. ITO, WARD-8(3), HYDERABAD

PDF · subscribers
ITA 85/HYD/2023Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad28 February 2023AY 2019-204 pages

In favour of the assessee: the assessee's appeal was allowed. From the AI summary of this appeal.

AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the due dates for filing the return of income and Form 67 were extended by CBDT notifications. Therefore, the assessee had complied with Rule 128(9) and was entitled to claim FTC.

What were the facts?

The assessee, a US citizen residing in India, claimed Foreign Tax Credit (FTC) for AY 2019-20. The CPC denied the FTC, stating the return and Form 67 were filed late. The CIT(A) upheld this, citing Rule 128(9).

What were the issues?

Whether the assessee is eligible for Foreign Tax Credit when the return and Form 67 were filed after the original due date but within the extended due dates notified by the CBDT.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 90,Section 139

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, HYDERABAD BENCHES “SMC”, HYDERABAD

Before: SHRI K.NARASIMHA CHARY

Hearing: 27/02/2023

आदेश / ORDER Aggrieved by the order dated 30/11/2022 passed by the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi (“Ld. CIT(A)”), in the case of one Swaroopa Simhadri (“the assessee”) for the assessment year 2019-20, assessee preferred this appeal. 2. Grievance of the assessee in this matter is that while processing the return of income for the assessment year 2019-20, the CPC, Bengaluru did not consider the Foreign Tax Credit (FTC) under section 90 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘the Act’) and raised the demand. Though the assessee happens to be a citizen of US, she came to India for business purpose for more than 182 days, thereby becoming a resident in India and in that capacity, she offered all the incomes from India and abroad and paid the taxes.

3.

According to the Revenue, the due date for filing the return of income and Form No. 67 in respect of the assessment year 2019-20 was 31/08/2019 whereas the assessee filed the return of income and form No. 67 on 27/07/2020. Learned CIT(A) also recorded that in terms of Rule 128(9) of the Income Tax Rules, 1962 (‘the Rules’), such an FTC cannot be allowed to the assessee.

4.

Learned AR submitted that it is a fact that the assessee filed the return of income on 27/07/2020 whereas originally, the due date for furnishing the return of income for the assessment year 2019-20 under section 139 of the Act was 31/08/2019, but vide notification No. 35/2020/F.No. 370142/23/2020-TPL, dated 24/06/2020, the CBDT extended such period upto 31/07/2020 and it was further extended vide notification No. 56/2020/F.No. 370142/23/2020-TPL, dated 29/07/2020, till 30/09/2020.

5.

Learned DR does not dispute these two notifications.

6.

Having gone through the record in the light of these two notifications, I am satisfied that whereas the due date for furnishing the return of income for the assessment year 2019-20 stood extended till 30/09/2020, the assessee filed her return of income on 27/07/2020 alongwith Form No. 67 and thereby there is sufficient compliance with the requirement of Rule 128(9) of the Rules. However, these two notifications missed the attention of the learned CIT(A), when the impugned order was passed.

7.

In these circumstances, I hold that there is no violation of the requirements of Rule 128(9) of the Rules and the assessee is entitled to claim the FTC. Learned Assessing Officer is directed to consider the same and grant relief.

8.

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed.

More judgments on Section 90

All 1,075 judgments and leading authorities on Section 90 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →