KUSUM HEALTHCARE PRIVATE LIMITED,DELHI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE 13(1), DELHI

आदेश / ORDER PER AMITABH SHUKLA, AM,

These two appeals filed by the same assessee are directed against separate orders dated 17.10.2025 and 14.11.2025 of the Learned Addl./Joint Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals)-9, Mumbai, [hereinafter referred to as ‘ld. CIT(A)] arising out of assessment order dated 23.01.2021 passed u/s 143(1)

for Assessment Year 2018-19 and dated 03.12.2024 passed u/s 154 for Assessment Year 2019-20 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The word ‘Act’ herein this order would mean Income Tax Act, 1961. 2. Both appeals are of the same assessee containing common grounds of appeal and therefore the same were heard together and for the purposes of convenience are being adjudicated by this common order. The decision taken upon common grounds in ITA No.8522/Del/2025 shall apply mutatis mutandis to ITA NO.8523/Del/2025 also. ITA No.8522/Del/2025 3. The assessee has raised following grounds of appeal for AY 2018-19:- 1. That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Addi/ JCIT(A) has grossly erred in upholding the order passed under section 143(1) of the Act by the Centralized Processing Center disallowing the benefit of foreign tax credit claimed by the Appellant in the return of income amounting to INR 32,98,933. 2. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Addi/ JCIT(A) grossly erred in interpreting the intent of the legislature that the claim of FTC cannot be denied merely on the ground that Form 67 was filed belatedly in the absence of any explicit provision in the Act or the Rules regarding the same. 3. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Addi/ JCIT(A) grossly erred in not appreciating that the requirement of filing Form 67 is procedural and hence to be construed only directional in nature and not mandatory as has been held by various Courts and Tribunals including that of Jurisdictional Delhi tribunal. 4. The only issue raised by the assessee in the present appeal is regarding the disallowance of Foreign Tax Credit to the assessee by the ld. AO. As per brief factual matrix of the case, the assessee is engaged in the business of manufacture of Pharmaceuticals and Botanical Parts, etc. The appellant had filed Form 67 as required under Rule-128 of the IT Rules to claim Foreign Tax Credit (in short ‘FTC’) of Rs.32,98,933/- on 27.06.2023. The lower authorities noted that the appellant was required to file FTC Form 67 for AY 2018-19 upto 31.03.2019 and since the same was not done, credit of FTC was not allowed. 5. Heard both the parties. Case file perused. 6. It is the case of the ld. Counsel for the assessee that the filing of Form 67 is merely a procedural requirement and its non-compliance cannot result in denial of FTC. In support of its contentions, the ld. Counsel has placed reliance upon a catena of judgments delivered by this Tribunal as in the case of Bhaskar Datta 199 ITD 432, Manoj Kumar Srivastava ITA No.3007/Del/2023, Neha Kapoor ITA No.135/Del/2023, etc. It was argued that in all the impugned judgments, it has been held that the filing of Form 67 is merely a procedural requirement and its non-compliance cannot result in denial of FTC. 7. The ld. DR would like to make us believe on the correctness of the orders of the lower authorities. 8. We have noted that in the case of Shri Manoj Kumar Srivastava (supra), this Tribunal has held as under:-

“…….8. Aggrieved, the assessee filed appeal before the Tribunal. 9. The assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal prayed for allowing the relief to the assessee as per Section 90 of the Act and as per Article 25 of India USA DTAA provides for credit for foreign taxes. It was submitted that section 90 of the Act read with Article 25( 2)( a) provides that USA tax paid shall be

Page 3 of 8

allowed as a credit against the Indian tax but limited to proportion of Indian tax. 10. Rule 128 (9 ) provides that Form 67 should be filed on or before the due date of filing the return of income as prescribed u/ s 139(1 ) of the Act, which is recently amended and provided for filling before the end of assessment year. However, the Rule nowhere provides that if the said Form 67 is not filed within the above stated time frame or incorrectly filed within time frame and rectified later on, the relief as sought by the assessee u/s 90 of the Act would be denied. It was not the legislative intention to deny the FTC, either under the Act or Rules. Filing of Form 67 is a procedural/ directory requirement and is not a mandatory requirement. It was submitted that violation of procedural norm does not extinguish the substantive right of claiming the credit of FTC. 11. Reliance is placed on the following judgments:  Brinda Ramakrishna vs. ITO (135taxmann.Com 358) (Bangalore ITAT)  Sonakshi Sinha vs. CIT (Appeals) (142 taxmann. com 414 ) (Mumbai ITAT)  Bhaskar Dutta vs. ACIT (Int. Taxation) (147 taxmann. com 481) (Delhi ITAT)

declaring income of Rs.53,22,940/-. Original tax liability of Rs.15,96,830/-, assessee had claimed FTC credit of Rs.2,65,500/-. The CPC raised demand under section 143(1) of Rs.3,42,838/-, wherein, the FTC credit was not granted. The assessee moved 154 which was rejected. The ld. CIT(A) dismissed the appeal of the assessee holding that FTC credit was rightly denied as Form-67 was belatedly filed. 7. The ld. Counsel for the assessee vehemently argued that the denial of FTC claim is erroneous and that the filing of Form-67 is merely directory and not mandatory as held in a plethora of judicial decision. 8. Per Contra, the ld. DR relied upon the orders of the lower authorities. 9. We have noted that the similar issue came for consideration before the Hon’ble Chennai Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Subramanian ShyamSunder as at ITA No.639/Del/2024 dated 29.05.2024. On identical facts, it was concluded as under:- “…..4.0 We have considered facts of the case in the light of evidence placed on record and rival’s submissions. The only issue for consideration is as to whether the delay of 01 day can be condoned or not. In support of its contentions the assesse has invited attention to the decision of the coordinate bench of this tribunal in IT appeal No.265 & 266 (CHNY) of 2023 in the case of Amit Singh Baid Mehta. The issue under consideration was as to whether non-submission of Form-67 before the due date of filing of written was enough to deny the claim of exemption u/s.90. The coordinate bench concluded the filing of Form-67 is merely a procedural / directory requirement and is not mandatory requirement so as to deny claim. The relevant part of the judgement is reproduced hereunder: “…6.3 No doubt, rule 128(0) provides that Form 67 should be filed on or before the due date of filing the return of income as prescribed under section 139(1) of the Act. However, the Rule nowhere provides that if the said Form 67 is not filed within the above stated time frame, the relief as sought for by the assesse under section 90 of the Act would be denied. 6.4 If the intention of the Legislature was to deny the FTC, either the Act or the Rules would have specifically provided that the FTC would be disallowed if the assesse does not file Form 67 within the due date prescribed under section 139(1) of the Act. There are many sections in the Act which specifically deny deduction or exemption or relief in case the

Page 5 of 8

return is not filed within prescribed time, such as, sections 80AC, 80-IA(7), 10A(5) and 10B(5), etc. of the Income-tax Act. Such language is not used in Rule 128(9). Therefore, such condition cannot be read into rule 128(9). Thus, we are of the considered opinion that filing of Form 67 is a procedural / directory requirement and is not a mandatory requirement. Since violation of procedural norm does not extinguish the substantive right of claiming the credit of FTC, we are of the considered opinion that the claim of the assesse should be allowed. Accordingly, we set aside the order of the ld.CIT(A) for both the assessment years and direct the Assessing Officer to allow the relief as sought for by the assesse under section 90 of the Act for both the assessment years under consideration…..” 5.0 Upon careful consideration of the facts and the judgement cited Supra we hold that the assesse cannot be denied benefit of the claim u/s.90 merely because of technical / procedural default of just 01 day. Accordingly, the AO is directed to condone the delay and allow the assesse the benefit of claim u/s 90. The ground of appeal raised by the assesse is therefore allowed….” 10. As the facts of the present case have been found to be identical to those in the case of Subramanian ShyamSunder(supra), we are of the considered view that that the assessee cannot be denied benefit of the claim u/s.90 merely because of technical / procedural default of belated filing. The filing of Form-67 is a directory practice and not mandatory. Accordingly, the AO is directed to condone the delay and allow the assesse the benefit of claim u/s 90 on account of Foreign Tax Credit. The appeal of the assessee vide ITA No.8428/Del/2025 for AY 2018-19 is therefore allowed. 11. As the facts of ITA Nos.8429 and 8442/Del/2025 for AYs 2019-20 and 2020-21 are identical and no distinguishment has been pointed out, the impugned appeals are also allowed. 12. Finally, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed…..”

Order pronounced in the open court on 03rd July, 2026.

Sd/- Sd/- [ANUBHAV SHARMA] [AMITABH SHUKLA] JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Dated: 03.07.2026 Shekhar Copy forwarded to: 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. PCIT 4. CIT(A) 5. DR Asst. Registrar, ITAT, New Delhi,

Page 8 of 8