HUSSAINALI AMIRALI LADHA,AHMEDABAD vs. CPC,IT DEPTT. PRESENT THE ITO, WARD-5(3)(1), AHMEDABAD

PDF · subscribers
ITA 2578/AHD/2025Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad03 August 2026AY 2018-195 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that filing Form 67 is a directory requirement, not mandatory, and the DTAA overrides the Act. Therefore, the benefit of foreign tax credit cannot be denied on a technical ground of delay in filing Form 67, especially when the foreign income was disclosed.

What were the facts?

The assessee claimed foreign tax credit under Section 90 for tax paid in Singapore. The CPC denied this relief during processing, and a subsequent rectification application was also rejected. The assessee's appeal to the CIT(A) was dismissed on the technical ground of not filing Form 67 before filing the return of income.

What were the issues?

Whether the denial of foreign tax credit due to delayed filing of Form 67 is justified, and if the filing of Form 67 is a mandatory condition for claiming relief under Section 90.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 90,Section 154,Section 139(1)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “SMC” BENCH, AHMEDABAD

Before: SHRI SANJAY GARG & SHRI NARENDRA PRASAD SINHA

For Appellant: Shri P F Jain, AR
For Respondent: Shri Drop Singh Meena, SR-DR
Hearing: 06.07.2026Pronounced: 03.08.2026

PER NARENDRA PRASAD SINHA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER:

This appeal is filed by the assessee against the order of Addl/JCIT (Appeal)–6, Kolkata, [hereinafter referred to as “Addl. CIT(A)”] dated 02.12.2025 for the Assessment Year (A.Y.) 2018-19 in the proceeding u/s 154 of the Income Tax Act [hereinafter referred as “the Act”].

2.

The brief facts of the case are that the assessee had filed his return of income for A.Y. 2018-19 on 20.07.2018 declaring total income of Rs.15,77,300/-. The assessee had declared salary income for assignment at Singapore by Tata Consultancy Service Limited, for which tax was collected by Singapore Government. In the return of income, the assessee

ITA No.2578/Ahd/2026 Hussainali Amirali Ladha Vs ITO., AY- 2018-19 2

had claimed tax relief of Rs.1,76,650/- u/s. 90 of the Act. The return was processes by the CPC on 19.03.2020 and the tax relief claimed u/s. 90 of the Act was denied while processing the return. Thereafter, the assessee had filed a rectification application u/s. 154 of the Act with the CPC, which was also rejected vide order dated 15.06.2020.

3.

Aggrieved with the rejection of rectification application by the CPC, the assessee had filed an appeal before the first appellate authority, which was decided by the Ld. Addl. CIT(A) vide the impugned order and the appeal of the assessee was dismissed. Th

4.

Now the assessee is in second appeal before us. The following grounds have been taken in this appeal:

1.

The learned CIT(A), NFAC has erred in law and on fact in dismissing the appeal of assessee on the technical ground that form No. 67 was not filed prior to filling return of income in as much as that form No. 67 was duly submitted subsequently. 2. He has erred in law and on facts in upholding the rejection of the application u/s 154 for grant of relief u/s 90 of Rs. 1,76,650/- duly mentioned and reflected in the ROI on the ground of non-filing of form 67 before filing of ROI. 3. He has erred in law and on facts in confirming the rejection of application u/s 154 on the ground that there is no mistake apparent from record in as much as that there is mistake apparent from record and without properly appreciating the facts and submission furnished to him. 4. He has erred in law and on facts in not properly appreciating the submission of the assessee addressed to him and uploaded on 26.02.2021, 23.09.2022 and 28.11.2024 for grant of relief as claimed u/s 90 of Rs. 1,76,650/-. 5. On the facts of the assessee the relief of Rs. 1,76,650/- u/s 90 ought to have been granted by the department without rejecting the same on technical ground of not filing of form 67 prior to filling of ROI. 6. Appellant craves leave to add, to alter and or modify any ground of appeal.

ITA No.2578/Ahd/2026 Hussainali Amirali Ladha Vs ITO., AY- 2018-19 3 5. Shri P F Jain, the Ld. AR of the assessee submitted that the assessee had legitimately claimed benefit of tax deducted/withhold by the Singapore Government and the assessee had rightly claimed benefit of the same u/s. 90 of the Act. He submitted that the assessee had duly disclosed the income earned in the foreign country in the return of income. Therefore, the CPC was not correct in denying the benefit of tax collected by the foreign country on the ground that Form No. 67 was not filed in time. The Ld. AR submitted that the filing of Form No. 67 was only a procedural requirement and the assessee was entitled to the benefit under Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement (DTAA) between India and Singapore. He also relied upon the following decisions in this regard:

1.

Deepak Pragjibhai Gondaliya by Honorable High Court of Gujarat reported in [2026] 486 ITR 458 (Guj.)

2.

Subhash Ishvarbhai Patel [ITA No. 754/Ahd/2024, A.Y 2020-21], ITAT Bench, Ahmedabad dated 10.09.2024.

6.

Per Contra, Shri Drop Singh Meena, the Ld. SR-DR supported the order of the lower authorities. He submitted that the assessee was required to file the Form No. 67 within due date specified in section 139(1) of the Act. However, the Form No. 67 was neither filed within the said due date nor was it filed along with the rectification application. Therefore, the CPC had rightly rejected the rectification application of the assessee.

7.

We have considered the rival submissions. The fact that the assessee had claimed credit for tax collected in Singapore u/s. 90 of the Act in the return of income is not under dispute. The only default of the assessee is that the Form No. 67 was not filed within the due date and it was also not filed along with the rectification application. The said Form

ITA No.2578/Ahd/2026 Hussainali Amirali Ladha Vs ITO., AY- 2018-19 4 No.-67 was filed only on 03.01.2021. Filing of Form No. 67 is not a mandatory but a directory requirement. Further, the Direct Tax Avoidance Agreement overrides the provisions of the Act and Rules. Therefore, the benefit of set-off of taxes paid in the foreign country cannot be denied to the assessee. The fact that the assessee had received salary income in foreign country, which was duly disclosed in the return of income, is not under dispute. Therefore, the benefit for the tax paid on such income in the foreign country cannot be disallowed on a technical ground of delay in filing Form No. 67. The Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of Deepak Pragjibhai Gondaliya (supra) has held that filing of Form No. 67 is procedural in nature and liberal approach should be exercised in condoning the delay in filing of the Form. The Co-ordinate bench of this Tribunal in the case of Subhash Ishvarbhai Patel (supra) has held that the late filing of Form No. 67 cannot deny the entitlement of the tax benefit to the assessee. In view of these judicial precedence’s, we deem it proper to set aside the matter to the file of Jurisdictional AO with a direction to verify the Form No. 67 filed by the assessee and thereafter allow the credit for tax paid in the foreign country, as per law.

8.

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose.

Order pronounced in the Court on 03/08/2026 at Ahmedabad.

Sd/- Sd/- (SANJAY GARG) (NARENDRA PRASAD SINHA) Judicial Member Accountant Member Dated – 03rd August, 2026 Neelesh, Sr. PS (True Copy)

ITA No.2578/Ahd/2026 Hussainali Amirali Ladha Vs ITO., AY- 2018-19 5

आदेश आदेश क� आदेश आदेश क� क� �ितिलिप क� �ितिलिप �ितिलिप अ�ेिषत �ितिलिप अ�ेिषत अ�ेिषत/Copy of the Order forwarded to : अ�ेिषत 1. अपीलाथ� / The Appellant 2. ��यथ� / The Respondent. 3. संबंिधत आयकर आयु� / Concerned CIT 4. आयकर आयु�(अपील) / The CIT(A) 5. िवभागीय �ितिनिध, आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण / DR, ITAT, 6. गाड� फाईल /Guard file. आदेशानुसार/BY ORDER, आदेशानुसार आदेशानुसार आदेशानुसार पंजीकार (Dy./Asstt.Registrar) उप उप/सहायक उप उप सहायक सहायक पंजीकार सहायक पंजीकार पंजीकार आयकर आयकर अपीलीय आयकर आयकर अपीलीय अपीलीय अिधकरण अपीलीय अिधकरण अिधकरण, अहमदाबाद अिधकरण अहमदाबाद अहमदाबाद / ITAT, Ahmedabad अहमदाबाद

More judgments on Section 90

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →