PANKAJ KUMAR,PUNE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 13(1), PUNE, PUNE

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCH “SMC”, PUNE BEFORE SHRI DR. DIPAK P. RIPOTE, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI VINAY BHAMORE, JUDICIAL MEMBER आयकर अपील सं. / ITA No.520/PUN/2026 िनधा�रण वष� / Assessment Year : 2015-16 Pankaj Kumar, Vs. ITO, Ward-13(1), Pune. Flat No.27, Jaiguru Apartment, Jangli Maharaj Nagar, Pimple Gurav, Pune- 411061. PAN : ARIPK0447N Appellant Respondent Assessee by : Shri Suhas Kulkarni Revenue by : Shri Sandeep Sathe Date of hearing : 06.04.2026 Date of pronouncement : 08.05.2026 आदेश / ORDER PER VINAY BHAMORE, JM: This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order dated 30.11.2025 passed by Ld. Addl./JCIT(A), Faridabad [‘Ld. CIT(A)’] for the assessment year 2015-16. 2. The appellant has raised the following grounds of appeal :- “The following grounds of appeal are preferred by the Appellant, Anesh Nandkumar Agarwal, against the order dated 30/11/2025 passed by the NFAC, whereby the appeal under section 250 was dismissed in respect of the order dated 16/04/2024 passed by the Assessing Officer under section 154.

2 ITA No.520/PUN/2026 Each ground is taken independently and without prejudice to each other. Ground No. 1 On the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned CIT(A) erred in confirming denial of Foreign Tax Credit (FTC) of Rs.95,342 paid in Germany, despite Form 16 evidencing the same, thereby wrongly sustaining demand of Rs.1,05,470 raised u/s 143(1). Ground No. 2 On the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned CIT(A) passed the impugned order without affording the appellant a proper and effective opportunity of being heard, thereby violating principles of natural justice. The order is vitiated on this ground alone and deserves to be set aside. Ground No. 3 On the facts and circumstances of the case, the appellant mistakenly filed ITR-1 instead of ITR-2, which lacked the FTC schedule under section 90/91. The rejection of rectification u/s 154 was unjustified when all primary evidence was on record and the error was apparent. Ground No. 4 On the facts and circumstances of the case, denial of FTC solely for non-filing of Form 67 was erroneous, since for AY 2015-16 taxpayers relied on DTAA provisions; the procedural requirement of Form 67 under Rule 128 applied prospectively from AY 2017-18 and cannot be retrospectively invoked to deny substantive relief against double taxation. Ground No. 5 On the facts and circumstances of the case, the appellant has subsequently filed Form 67 on 24.01.2026 (ARN: 284699050240126) claiming FTC for German salary and tax paid under the India- Germany DTAA, which satisfies Rule 29 ITAT Rules for admission as additional evidence; further, reconciliation of tax liability shows total tax paid exceeded liability, warranting deletion of demand. Ground No. 6 The appellant craves leave to add, amend, alter, modify, delete or substitute any ground at or before hearing.” 3. Facts of the case, in brief, are that the assessee is an individual salaried employee in Infosys Limited, Bengaluru and for the year under consideration served in India as well as in Germany also.

3 ITA No.520/PUN/2026 The employer of the assessee deducted TDS of Rs.1,04,736/- and also shown Foreign Tax Credit of Rs.95,342/- in Form 16, Part-B. The assessee furnished return of income on 20.08.2015 in Form No.ITR-1 by declaring an income of Rs.12,30,830/- and claimed total tax credit of Rs.2,00,138/- (1,04,796/- + 95,342/-). Vide order dated 08.10.2015, CPC processed the above return u/s 143(1) of the IT Act by raising demand of Rs.1,05,407/- without allowing Foreign Tax Credit of Rs.95,342/-. Being aggrieved with the above intimation, the assessee filed an application u/s 154 of the IT Act on 13.03.2024 wherein Foreign Tax Credit of Rs.95,342/- was requested to be allowed. Vide order dated 16.04.2024, the Assessing Officer dismissed the above application filed u/s 154 of the IT Act by observing as under :- “The assessee has filed application on 13.3.2024 u/s 154 stating that “while processing the income tax return at CPC, CPC has not given credit for the Foreign Taxes Paid in Germany of Rs. 95342/-. This results in Demand of Rs. 105470/- for A.Y. 2015-16.” This office has perused your application u/s.154 for the AY 2015-16 filed on 13.3.2024. On verification it is seen that the return was processed u/s.143(1) is as per the income shown in the return of income filed by you. Further it is seen that in the return of income there is no claim of relief u/s 90/91 for Foreign Tax Credit. Hence, there is no discrepancy. Hence, your rectification application cannot be entertained and is rejected.” 4. Being aggrieved with above rectification order passed u/s 154, the assessee preferred an appeal before Ld. CIT(A). After

4 ITA No.520/PUN/2026 considering the reply and submissions of the assessee, Ld. CIT(A) dismissed the appeal filed by the assessee by observing as under :- “4.1 The central issue of adjudication in this appeal is grant of relief under Section 90/91 of the Act. 4.2 Section 90 (where DTAA exists) or Section 91 (where DTAA does not exist) of the Income Tax Act provides for unilateral relief from double taxation for an Indian resident who has paid tax in a foreign country. It is pertinent to mention here that Form 67 is a mandatory statement required under Rule 128 of the Income Tax Rules to furnish details of foreign income and the tax paid on it, enabling the claim for FTC under either Section 90 (where DTAA exists) or Section 91 (where DTAA does not exist). In this appeal, the appellant has nowhere mentioned about filing of Form 67 for the year under consideration, to claim the relief under Section 90/91 of the Act. 4.3 It is also evident from CPC 2.0 portal that the appellant had not filed Form 67 for the year under consideration to claim the relief under Section 90/91 of the Act. Further, the appellant had not claimed any relief under Section 90/91 of the Act while filing his return of income for AY 2015-16. In these circumstances, the claim of relief under Section 90/91 cannot be allowed to the appellant. Accordingly, the ground raised by the appellant is hereby dismissed.” 5. It is the above order against which the assessee is in appeal before this Tribunal. 6. We have heard Ld. Counsels from both the sides and perused the material available on record including the paper book furnished by the assessee. In this regard, we find that it is the sole request of the assessee that the Foreign Tax Credit of Rs.95,342/- may kindly be allowed to the assessee since the same was certified in Form-16, Part-B issued by Infosys Limited since tax of Rs.95,342/- was deducted in Germany. The assessee also furnished Form 67 online

5 ITA No.520/PUN/2026 on 24.01.2026 and produced the acknowledgement before us and requested to allow the Foreign Tax Credit. 7. In this regard, we find that Form 67 furnished by the assessee is not applicable for assessment year 2015-16 since it was introduced and made applicable w.e.f. 01.04.2017. It is an admitted fact that the assessee performed services in India as well as in Germany and at both the places income tax was deducted from his salary which was certified by the employer, Infosys Limited. However, we find that the assessee himself has not claimed any relief u/s 90/91 of the IT Act towards Foreign Tax Credit in his return of income and due to this reason Ld. CIT(A) dismissed the appeal filed by the assessee. 8. Considering the totality of the facts of the case and in the interest of justice, we deem it appropriate to set-aside the order passed by Ld. CIT(A) and restore the matter back to the file of the Jurisdictional Assessing Office to decide the issue with regard to claim of the assessee towards Foreign Tax Credit of Rs.95,342/- afresh and as per fact and law after providing reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee. The assessee is also hereby directed to respond to the notices issued by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer in this regard and to produce appropriate

6 ITA No.520/PUN/2026 Form/certificate/ documents applicable in his case for the relevant assessment year, if any, to support his claim of Foreign Tax Credit, without taking any adjournment under any pretext, otherwise the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer shall be at liberty to pass appropriate orders as per law. Thus, the grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes. 9. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced on this 08th day of May, 2026. Sd/- Sd/- (DR. DIPAK P. RIPOTE) (VINAY BHAMORE) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER पुणे / Pune; �दनांक / Dated : 08th May, 2026. Sujeet/DOC Digitally signed by Sujeet Kumar Sujeet Kumar Sharma Sharma Date: 2026.05.18 आदेश क� �ितिलिप अ�ेिषत / Copy of the Order forwarded to : 17:05:58 +05'30' अपीलाथ� / The Appellant. 1. ��यथ� / The Respondent. 2. 3. The Addl./JCIT(A), Faridabad. 4. The Pr. CIT/CIT concerned. िवभागीय �ितिनिध, आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, “SMC” ब�च, 5. पुणे / DR, ITAT, “SMC” Bench, Pune. गाड� फ़ाइल / Guard File. 6. आदेशानुसार / BY ORDER, // True Copy // Assistant Registrar आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, पुणे / ITAT, Pune.