SRIKANTH ATLURI,DURGAAGRAHARAM vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 2(3), VIJAYAWADA

PDF · subscribers
ITA 97/VIZ/2026Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam12 June 2026AY 2020-216 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the delay in filing Form 67 should not result in disallowance of FTC, especially when DTAA provisions allow for credit of taxes paid in foreign jurisdictions. The Tribunal followed its earlier decision in the assessee's own case.

What were the facts?

The assessee claimed Foreign Tax Credit (FTC) which was denied by the AO and CIT(A) for not filing Form 67 within the stipulated time. The assessee argued that the delay in filing Form 67 should not lead to disallowance and double taxation.

What were the issues?

Whether disallowance of Foreign Tax Credit is justified due to delayed filing of Form 67, and if DTAA provisions override procedural lapses.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 90

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, VISAKHAPATNAM BENCH, VISAKHAPATNAM

आयकर अपीऱीय अधिकरण, विशाखापत्तनम पीठ, विशाखापत्तनम INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, VISAKHAPATNAM BENCH, VISAKHAPATNAM श्री उदयन दास गुप्ता, माननीय न्याययक सदस्य एिं श्री ओम्कारेश्िर धिदारा, माननीय ऱेखा सदस्य SHRI UDAYAN DAS GUPTA, HON’BLE JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI OMKARESHWAR CHIDARA, HON’BLE ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं / ITA No.97/Viz/2026 (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Year: 2020-21) Srikanth Atluri Vs. Income Tax Officer Vijayawada Ward-2(3) Vijayawada PAN :AFRPA5568H (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) (अपीलधर्थी/Appellant)

निर्धाऩिती द्वधिध/ Shri C.Subrahmanyam, CA Assessee represented by: िधजस्वe द्वधिध/ Revenue represented by: Dr.Aparna Villuri, Sr.AR

सुिवधई की तधिीख/ 09.06.2026 Date of conclusion of hearing: घोषणध की तधिीख/ 12.06.2026 Date of pronouncement: आदेश / ORDER PER OMKARESHWAR CHIDARA, A.M.: This appeal is filed by the assessee against the order of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)/Addl./JCIT(A)-2 Noida [“Ld.CIT(A)] vide DIN & Notice No.ITBA/APL/S/250/2025- 26/1083059265(1) dated 27.11.2025, arising out of order passed by the Ld.AO u/s 154 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (“the Act”) dated 21.09.2024 for the A.Y.2020-21.

2.

In the above cited appeal, the grievance of the assessee is that Foreign Tax Credit claim was not allowed, as the required certificate was not enclosed along with the return of income filed u/s 139(1) of the Act. In this case, the Ld.AO and the Ld.CIT(A) have denied the Foreign Tax Credit on the ground that Form 67 was not filed within the stipulated time under Rule 128(9) of Income Tax Rules, 1962. Subsequent to filing of return, the appellant had filed Form 67 vide application u/s 154 of the Act, rectifying the original return. The main claim of appellant is that the required taxes were paid in the foreign jurisdiction, thereby discharging his tax liability and disallowing the same would result in double taxation, which is not legal. The appellant’s contention is that Rule 128(9) does not provide for any penal consequence or disallowance in case of delayed filing of Form 67, hence, disallowance of Foreign Tax Credit is not justified. In view of the same, the appellant filed this appeal before ITAT, requesting to allow Foreign Tax Credit to the appellant and set aside the disallowance made by the Ld.CIT(A).

3.

The Ld.AR of the appellant filed written submissions/paper book at the time of hearing, containing ITR acknowledgement of the assessee for the impugned assessment year, Form 67 filed and acknowledgement of the same. In the paper book, the Ld.AR of the appellant has enclosed a copy of ITAT order in the assessee’s own case, Srikanth Atluri Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(3) in ITA No.491/Viz/2024 for the A.Y.2021-22 dated 09.06.2025, where it was held as follows :

“13. From the above amendment we observe that legislature allows the assessee to make the claim for the Foreign Tax Credit even though if it is filed belatedly due to various circumstances. Article 24 of the DTAA also allows the credit for taxes paid in the other countries. Since the amendment being a clarificatory amendment it can be applied retrospectively. Accordingly, we are of the considered view that the Form No. 67 filed belatedly by the assessee i.e., on 19.11.2022 claiming Foreign Tax Credit of Rs. 5,73,915/- under section 90 of the Act deserves to be allowed. 15. Respectfully following the various judicial pronouncements as cited by Ld.AR, and also considering the amendment to Rule 128 including the Explanatory Memorandum, we direct the Ld. AO to allow the Foreign Tax Credit of Rs.5,73,915/- to the assessee, even though the Form No. 67 is filed belatedly. Accordingly, grounds raised by the assessee are thus allowed.” 3.1. In view of the above order, the Ld.AR of the appellant requested the Bench to allow the claim in this year also.

4.

The Ld.DR relied on the decision of Muralikrishna Vaddi Vs. ACIT/DCIT in ITA No.269/Viz/2021 for the A.Y.2018-19 dated 14.06.2022, wherein, the coordinate Bench of Visakhapatnam has dismissed the appeal of the assessee by holding that, Rule 128(9) of Income Tax Rules, 1962 used the word “shall” and hence Form 67 shall be enclosed along with the return of income. In view of the same, the Ld.DR has pleaded that the assessee’s appeal should be dismissed.

5.

After perusing both the orders of coordinate Bench of Visakhapatnam, this Bench takes a view in favour of the assessee by following the decision of ITAT in assessee’s own case for the earlier year for the following reasons :

(a) The decision of the coordinate Bench of this Tribunal in the case of Muralikrishna Vaddi was considered and distinguished with the assessee’s own case for the earlier year while giving relief to the appellant. In the assessee’s own case for the earlier year, the coordinate Bench has taken into consideration the Explanatory Memorandum to the amendment to Rule 128(9) of Income Tax Rules and also several decisions rendered in favour of the assessee by Bangalore, Hyderabad and Jaipur Benches and held that Form No.67 is directory in nature and not mandatory.

(b) Moreover, the provisions of Double Tax Avoidance Agreement (“DTAA”) override the Income Tax Act and hence when the DTAA provides by way of Article 24 for the credit of taxes paid on the same income in another country, it cannot be denied to the assessee on the basis of procedural lapses, which is arising out of the delay in filing of Form No.67. In view of the same, respectfully following the decision of coordinate Bench in assessee’s own case in the earlier year, the assessee’s appeal is allowed and the Revenue is directed to give credit to the taxes paid in foreign jurisdiction.

6.

In the result, the appeal filed by the Assessee is allowed.

Order pronounced in the open court on 12th June, 2026.

Sd/- Sd/- (उदयन दास गुप्ता) (ओम्कारेश्िर धिदारा) (UDAYAN DAS GUPTA) (OMKARESHWAR CHIDARA) न्याययक सदस्य/JUDICIAL MEMBER ऱेखा सदस्य/ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Visakhapatnam dated 12.06.2026. L.Rama/Sr.PS Copy to: SRIKANTH ATLURI, 30-13/1-18 DURGAAGRAHARAM 1 VIJAYAWADA, VIJAYAWADA-520002, ANDHRA PRADESH INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 2(3), INCOME TAX OFFICE, WARD 2(3), 2 VIJAYAWADA-520002, ANDHRA PRADESH 3 THE PCIT, VIJAYAWADA 4 THE D.R., ITAT, VISAKHAPATNAM BENCH 5 GUARD FILE

More judgments on Section 90

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →