ANJU SAHADEVAN,NASHIK vs. INCOME TAX OFFICE NASHIK WARD 2(1), NASHIK

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.72/PUN/2026 िनधा�रण वष� / Assessment Year : 2023-24 Anju Sahadevan, Vs. ITO, Ward-2(1), Nashik. Flat No.8, Manoj Appt., Happy Home Colony, Dwarka, Nashik- 422011. PAN : DOZPS5949C Appellant Respondent Assessee by : Shri Rakesh Pardeshi Revenue by : Shri Sandeep Sathe Date of hearing : 08.04.2026 Date of pronouncement : 08.05.2026 आदेश / ORDER PER VINAY BHAMORE, JM: This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order dated 13.11.2025 passed by Ld. Addl./JCIT(A)-1, Jaipur [‘Ld. CIT(A)’] for the assessment year 2023-24. 2. The appellant has raised the following grounds of appeal :- “1. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned Assessing Officer and CPC erred in passing the impugned intimation and order under section 143(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, resulting in an incorrect demand of Rs. 2,36,178 and denial of a legitimate refund, without proper appreciation of facts and law.

2 ITA No.72/PUN/2026 2. That the learned Assessing Officer and CPC erred in disallowing the Foreign Tax Credit of Rs. 2,58,530 claimed under section 90 of the Act, despite the appellant having duly filed Form No. 67 within the prescribed time and furnished all requisite supporting documents in full compliance with Rule 128 of the Income-tax Rules, 1962. 3. That the learned Assessing Officer and CPC erred in ignoring the revised return of income filed by the appellant, wherein the residential status was correctly revised to Resident but Not Ordinarily Resident, while continuing to deny the Foreign Tax Credit which remained fully allowable even after such correction. 4. That the learned Assessing Officer and CPC erred in disallowing the Foreign Tax Credit on the ground of incorrect reporting by the employer in Form 16, wherein relief was mentioned under section 89 instead of section 90, which is arbitrary, unjustified, and unsustainable in law, as the appellant cannot be penalized for an error committed by the employer when the substantive eligibility for Foreign Tax Credit is undisputed. 5. That the learned Assessing Officer erred in law and on facts in rejecting the rectification applications filed under section 154 of the Act, despite the existence of a clear and apparent mistake on record, merely on the ground of system or technical constraints, which cannot override statutory rights granted under the Act. 6. That the learned Assessing Officer failed to appreciate that procedural or technical lapses, if any, cannot defeat substantive statutory benefits, particularly when taxes have already been paid in a foreign country and credit thereof is mandatorily allowable under section 90 read with the applicable Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement. 7. That the appellant denies her liability to pay the impugned demand in toto and submits that the same is illegal, incorrect, unjustified, and liable to be deleted. 8. That the appellant craves leave to add, alter, amend, or withdraw any of the above grounds of appeal at any time before or during the course of hearing.” 3. Facts of the case, in brief, are that the assessee is a Resident Indian individual salaried employee in Infosys Limited and received salary from Indian Unit of the company as well as Canadian Unit of

3 ITA No.72/PUN/2026 the Infosys Limited. The return of income was furnished on 27.07.2023 declaring an income of Rs.18,56,240/- claiming refund of Rs.51,440/- on the basis of relief of Rs.2,58,530/- claimed as per Form 67 with regard to Foreign Tax Credit. Vide order dated 15.12.2023, the return was processed by CPC raising a demand of Rs.2,36,180/- by denying the relief of Foreign Tax Credit claimed on the basis of Form 67. The assessee furnished rectification application u/s 154 of the IT Act, however CPC vide order dated 27.03.2024 issued rectified intimation with no change. 4. Being aggrieved with the above order passed by CPC, the assessee preferred an appeal before Ld. CIT(A). After considering the reply and submissions of the assessee, Ld. CIT(A) confirmed the order passed by CPC and dismissed the appeal filed by the assessee. 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.2,58,530/- may kindly be allowed to the assessee since filing of Form 67 is held to be procedural requirement only and admittedly due to some

4 ITA No.72/PUN/2026 typographical error in Form 67 the relief was claimed u/s 89 instead of u/s 90 of the IT Act and the rectified Form 67 was furnished subsequently. We find force in the above arguments of Ld. Counsel of the assessee that the filing of Form 67 is held to be procedural requirement only and we also find that the original Form 67 was filed within time and rectified Form 67 was filed latter on. 7. Considering the totality of the facts of the case and in the light of coordinate bench decision passed in the case of (i) Suchi Agrawal vs. ITO (ITA No.601/Del/2024) and (ii) Monika Rathore vs. ITO (ITA No.290/AGR/2024) wherein under identical facts involving similar issue of allowance of Foreign Tax Credit on the basis of belated Form 67 the relief was allowed. Respectfully following the above decisions (supra), we hold that filing of Form 67 is procedural requirement and violation of procedural aspect does not adversely affect the substantive rights of the assessee. Accordingly, we deem it appropriate to set-aside the order passed by Ld. CIT(A) and remand the matter to the file of Jurisdictional Assessing Officer with a direction to allow Foreign Tax Credit claimed by the assessee after verifying Form 67 filed by the assessee and after providing reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee. The assessee is also hereby directed to respond to the notices issued by the

5 ITA No.72/PUN/2026 Jurisdictional Assessing Officer in this regard and to produce relevant documents, evidences and submissions, if any, to support his claim 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. 8. 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 Sujeet Kumar Digitally signed by Sujeet Kumar Sharma Sharma Date: 2026.05.18 17:15:57 +05'30' आदेश क� �ितिलिप अ�ेिषत / Copy of the Order forwarded to : अपीलाथ� / The Appellant. 1. ��यथ� / The Respondent. 2. 3. The Addl./JCIT(A)-1, Jaipur. 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.