NAVNEET SALUJA,NEW DELHI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, NEW DELHI

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘C’: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRIS.RIFAUR RAHMAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER and MS. MADHUMITA ROY, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No.386/DEL/2026 (Assessment Year: 2019-20) Navneet Saluja, vs. ITO, Circle 70 (1), B- 64, Soami Nagar, New Delhi. New Delhi – 110 017. (PAN : ABXPS7099D) (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY : Ms. Preeti Goel, Advocate REVENUE BY : Shri Om Prakash, Sr. DR Date of Hearing : 07.05.2026 Date of Pronouncement : 24.06.2026 ORDER PER S.RIFAUR RAHMAN,AM: 1. The assessee has filed appeal against the order of the Ld. Addl. / JCIT (A)-1, Kolkata [“Ld. CIT(A)”, for short] dated 18.11.2025 for the Assessment Year 2019-20. 2. At the time of hearing, ld. AR for the assessee submitted that the ld. CIT (A) erred in disregarding the facts, documentary evidences, statutory provisions and judicial precedents cited in support of the FTC claimed under Article 22 of the India – Turkey DTAA vide submissions dated 28th March, 2025 and 13th November, 2025. Further she submitted that the ld. CIT (A) erred in disallowing the FTC claimed under Article 22 of the India – Turkey Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement (DTAA) read with section 90 of the Act merely on the grounds that the assessee failed to file Form 67

2 ITA No.386/DEL/2026 within the due date provided under section 139 (1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (for short ‘the Act’) ignoring that filing of Form 67 is a mere procedural requirement and not mandatory as basis of claim for FTC was duly supported by relevant documentary evidence. She submitted that ld. CIT (A) has not appreciated the documentary evidences and statutory provisions. Accordingly, she prayed that this issue may be remitted back to AO with the prayer to give an opportunity of being heard to the assessee. 3. On the other hand, ld. DR for the Revenue objected to the submissions of the ld. counsel for the assessee. 4. After hearing both the parties and going through the orders of the lower authorities, we are of the considered opinion that the issue is required to be restored back to the file of AO to decide afresh in the light of the evidences submitted by the assessee. Therefore, we remit back the issues to the file of the Assessing Officer with the directions to decide the same afresh, after giving adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee. Assessee is directed to fully cooperate with the AO during the proceedings. We hold and direct accordingly. 5. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open court on this 24th day of June, 2026. Sd/- sd/- (MADHUMITA ROY) (S.RIFAUR RAHMAN) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Dated: .06.2026 TS

3 ITA No.386/DEL/2026