PIUSH SHARMA,TIKAMGARH vs. ITO-1(1) BHOPAL, BHOPAL

Per Paresh M Joshi, J.M.:

This is an Appeal filed by the Assessee under section 253 of

the income tax Act 1961,[ herein after referred to as the Act

for the sake of brevity] before this tribunal as & by way of a

second Appeal. The Assessee is aggrieved by the order

bearingNumber:-ITBA/NFAC/250/2025-26/1081554275(1)

dated 08.10.2025 passed by the Ld. CIT(A) u/s 250 of the

Act, which is herein after referred to as the “Impugned

order”. The Relevant Assessment year is 2023-24 and the corresponding previous year period is from 01.04.2022 to

31.03.2023.

2.1 That as and by way of an “intimation order made u/s

154 of the act by the CPC dated 24.06.2025 a demand of

Rs. 3,34,110/- was created on the assessee under demand

reference no. 20252023373591287207T which is here in

after referred to as “Impugned intimation order u/s 154 of

the Act”.

2.2 The assessee had filed ITR for AY 2023-24 which

included income from the salary earned both in India & in

the Germany, under acknowledgement no.

717516710260723. The assessee had paid taxes on the

income earned in the Germany to the tax authorities of the

Germany. A relief of Rs. 3,03,350/- was claimed u/s 90 of

the act for taxes paid in Germany in accordance with the

provisions of the double taxation avoidance agreement

(DTAA) between India & Germany. The assessee finally

landed up with a demand u/s 154 due to form no. 67 which is required to be filed in the time stipulated by law but was

not filed. In this particular case it was filed late i.e.

23.07.2024. ROI was filed on 26.07.2023. The relevant

rule is 128(9) which mandates filling of such form no. 67 on

or before the end of the assessment year.

2.3 In the intimation order u/s 143(1) of the act dated

10.08.2023 the Ld. AO CPC accepted the total income of Rs.

21,97,042/- as returned by the assessee for AY 2023-24. The

Tax payable was determined at Rs. 4,89,076/-. However the

tax relief amounting to Rs. 3,03,350/- which was claimed

u/s 90 by the assessee on foreign tax credit (FTC) was

denied/deprived. The assessee thereafter made an

application u/s 154 of the act which was rejected by the CPC

vide order dated 24.06.2025(supra) i.e. “impugned

intimation order u/s 154 of the act”.

2.4 That the assessee being aggrieved by the aforesaid

impugned intimation order u/s 154 of the act dated

24.06.2025 prefers the first appeal u/s 246A of the act

before the Ld. CIT(A) on 16.07.2025 which was dismissed

by him by passing the “impugned order” on the grounds & reasons stated therein. The core grounds & reasons for the

dismissal of the first appeal was as under:-

‘6.1 Reiterating the facts of the case of the appellant that the return of income for AY 2023-24 was filed by the appellant on 26.07.2023. The return was processed u/s 143(1) vide intimation order dated 10.08.2023. The form No. 67 was filed on 23.07.2024. Thereafter the AO, CPC has passed rectification orders u/s 154 dated 27.05.2025 and 24.06.2025 rejecting the rectification application of the appellant. It is seen that no express powers have been vested on any authority to condone the delay in filing Form 67. Therefore the appellant has not followed the rule 128 in respect of filing form no.67 on or before the end of relevant assessment year. The appellant has relied on several judicial decisions however, in view of the judicial decisions relied above, the contention of the appellant is not accepted. Therefore, the denial of foreign tax credit amounting to Rs.3,03,350/-, which was claimed by the appellant in the return of income, by the AO in order u/s 143(1) and subsequent orders u/s 154 dated 27.05.2025 and 24.06.2025 is upheld. Accordingly, the above ground of appeal is dismissed. 6.2 Ground no. 2,3,4 & 5 The above grounds of appeal are consequential and general in nature and therefore are not separately adjudicated, 7. In result the appeal of the appellant is Dismissed

2.5 The assessee being aggrieved by the “Impugned Order”

has preferred the instant second appeal before this Tribunal

has raised the following grounds of appeal in the form no. 36

against the “Impugned Order” which are as under:-

“1.That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the Honble CIT (A) erred in not granting the relief u/s 90 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 to the assessee due to belated filing of Form 67 without properly appreciating the facts of the case and the submissions made before him. 2.That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the Honble CIT (A) erred in confirming the adjustment made on account of denial of foreign tax credit by the CPC while processing the original return of income and the subsequent requests for reprocessing of the said return. 3. The appellant craves leave to add. amend, modify, OR withdraw any of the grounds of appeal at the time of hearing.” 3. Record of Hearing

3.1 The hearing in the matter took place before this Tribunal

on 16.04.2026 when the Ld. AR for & on the behalf of the

Assessee appeared before us & interalia contended that the

“Impugned Order” is bad in law, illegal & not Proper. It

therefore deserves to be set aside as the relevant form no.

67(FTC) was filed on 23.07.2024 copy which was tendered to

us. It was contended that though the ITR was filed on

26.07.2023 but before the “impugned intimation order u/s

154 dated 24.06.2025” the FTC (Form 67) was on record as

the same was filed on 23.07.2024 & due benefit of FTC in the

tax ought to have been given to the assessee by both the

lower authorities below as the filling of form 67 (FTC) is only

a procedural lapse & substantive benefit of it cannot be

denied to the assessee the tax payer. Per contra the Ld.

DR appearing for the revenue left the issue on the wisdom of

this Tribunal to take an appropriate call basis law in this

regard. In the rejoinder arguments the Ld. AR submitted that by catena of orders & decision of several benches of ITAT

including ITAT Indore it well settled that a substantive

benefit u/s 90 of the Act cannot be denied to the assessee

merely because the form no. 67 was filed belatedly. The

hearing was over & closed.

4.1 We have to decide the legality, validity and proprietary of the

“Impugned order” basis records of the case & the rival

submission canvassed before us.

4.2 We have carefully perused the records of the case and have

heard the submissions.

4.3 We basis records of the case & after hearing & upon

examining the rival contentions of the Ld. AR & the Ld. DR

canvassed before us, are of the considered opinion that the

“Impugned Order” is bad in law illegal & not proper as

filling of form no. 67 (FTC) is a procedural requirement & not

a substantive requirement. The form no. 67 (FTC) was filed

on 23.07.2024 & we hold that “Tax relief” on this score

should go to the assessee after the same is verified by the Ld.

AO. Accordingly we set aside the “Impugned Order” & allow

the benefit of the form no. 67 (FTC) to the assessee after due

verification of the said form no. 67 (FTC) by the Ld. AO. In

this regard we rely upon following orders of ITAT:-

(i) ITA No. 747/CHD/2023-Ashish sood v/s DCIT (ITAT CHD)

dated 23.04.2024

(ii) ITA No. 2536/DEL/2022-Vikas dega v/s ACIT (ITAT,

Delhi) dated 14.06.2023

(iii) ITANo.4087/Chny/2025, Shri Rajiv Ramesh Lulla vs.

DCIT dated 10.04.2026

(iv) ITANo.557/Ind/2025 Shipij Rathore vs. ITO dated

19.02.2026

(v) ITANo.410/Ind/2025, Hemlata Patel vs. ITO, Dewas dated

06.02.2026

Were in too, the benefit of the Form No. 67 (FTC) have been

extended subject verification by Ld. AO.

4.4 In view of the premises drawn by us we set aside the

“Impugned order” & give relief to tax payer the assessee basis from 67 (FTC) subject to the due verification of the same by the

Ld. AO.

5 Order

5.1 The “Impugned order” is set aside & Ld. AO is directed to

give tax relief of amount claimed in ITR after due verification.

5.2. Appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose. Pronounced in open court on 24.04.2026.

Sd/- Sd/-

(BHAGIRATH MAL BIYANI) (PARESH M JOSHI) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Indore Dated : 24/04/2026 Patel/Sr. PS Copies to: (1) The appellant (2) The respondent (3) CIT (4) CIT(A) (5) Departmental Representative (6) Guard File By order UE COPY Senior Private Secretary Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Indore Bench, Indore

Page 8 of 8