NIKHIL BALKRISHNA KHOBRAGADE,PUNE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 2(2), PUNE

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCH: SMC BEFORE SHRI PAVAN KUMAR GADALE, JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T.A.No.1623/PUN/2026 (Assessment Year : 2022-23) Nikhil Balkrishna ITO Ward 2(2). Khobragade, PMT Building, Survey no 55/2/9, vs. Swargate, Road.No.14, Pune-411037, Pune-411015, Maharashtra. Maharashtra. PAN.NO. EFUPK3510J (Appellant) (Respondent) For Assessee : None For Revenue : Shri. Manish Mehta.JCIT. Sr.DR Date of Hearing : 30.06.2026 Date of Pronouncement : 30.06.2026 ORDER PER PAVAN KUMAR GADALE, JUDICIAL MEMBER The assessee has filed the appeal against the order of ADDL/ JCIT(A), Chennai passed u/sec 154 and 250 of the Income Tax Act. The assessee has raised the grounds of appeal challenging the order of the CIT(A) sustaining the denial of relief of foreign tax credit. 2. The brief facts of the case are that, the assessee has filed the return of income for the A.Y. 2022-23 on 28.07.2022 disclosing a total income of Rs.3,87,770/-. The assessee was on assignment to United States Of America(U.S.A) in the F.Y.2021-2022 and paid taxes. The assessee has filed the revised return of income u/sec139(5) of the Act on 01.11.2022 including salary income from U.S.A and claimed Foreign Tax Credit(FTC) of Rs.1,76,456/- under the provisions of section 90/91 of the Act as per the India-USA Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement (DTAA) .Subsequently, return of income was processed u/sec 143(1) of the Act accepting the income as per the return of income tax filed by the assessee but no relief was granted u/sec 90 of the Act in respect of Foreign Tax Credit(FTC) and raised a demand of Rs.2,57,480/- and the rectification application filed by the assessee was rejected vide order u/sec154 of the Act dated 28.05.2024. 3. Aggrieved by the rectification order, the assessee has filed the appeal with the CIT(A), whereas the CIT(A) has considered the grounds of appeal, statement of facts and submissions of assessee on the FTC, but the CIT(A) was not satisfied with the explanations on the claim of the FTC and has confirmed the action of the Ld.AO and dismissed the assessee’s appeal.Aggrieved by the order of the CIT(A), the assessee has filed appeal before the Hon'ble Tribunal.None appeared on behalf of the assessee. 4. Heard the rival submissions and perused the material on record. The assessee has raised the grounds of appeal challenging the action of the AO which was confirmed by the CIT(A) in respect of denial of Foreign Tax Credit(FTC) as the assessee has filed form no. 67 beyond the due date u/sec139(1) of the Act. Whereas the assessee has filed Form No. 67 online on 27.08.2022 on portal of Income Tax Department in order to comply with Rule 128 of the Income Tax Rules. Further in respect of FTC, the assessee is required to file Form No. 67 with the details of statement of income from the country or specified territory outside India and further the 128A of the Income Tax Rules prescribed the procedure for claiming the FTC. We find u/sec 90/91 of the Income Tax Act allow double taxation relief in respect of the agreement with the foreign countries specified territory. Whereas the Coordinate Bench of this Honble Tribunal in ITA No. 76/PUN/2025 in the case of Sandeep Damodar Jadhav Vs I T O Ward-3, satara A.Y.2021-22 dated 21.03.2025 has considered the facts, law on filing of Form 67 and observed at Para 3 to 7 of the Order as under: “ “3.In the instant appeal, assessee has raised as many as six grounds and perusal of the same indicate that the soel grievance of the assessee is that the Ld. CIT(A) erred in not granting the FTC of Rs. 2,31,471/-merely on the grounds that From No. 67 which was required to be filed in support of the claim of FTC was filed beyond the due date of filing the return of income 4.On going through the written submissions filed by the assessee, we notice that it has been consistently held by the Coordinate Benches as well as this Tribunal that filing of Form No. 67 is merely directory in nature and not mandatory and therefore, even if it is filed belatedly the same should be considered for allowing FTC. Ld DR failed to controvert the submissions by the assessee by placing any other binding precedent. 5.We have heard the Ld. DR and perused the record placed before u/s. Assessee is aggrieved for non grant of FCT of ₹. 2,31,471/-. The CPC while processing the return u/sec. 143(1)(a) of the Act for the A.Y. 2021-22 did not allow the FTC as Form No.

67 filed in support of the claim of FTC was filed beyond the due date. The issue under consideration is no longer res integra and we considering the decision of Coordinate Bench, Hyderabad in the case of Ashish Agrawal Vs. ITO in ITA No. 337/Hyd/2023 dated 26.09.2023 who is another employee of the very same company of which the assessee is employee, i.e. Emerson Electric company (India) Private Limited and the Tribunal held that filing of From No. 67 is only directory since Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement overrides the Act and Rules and therefore, if the assessee has paid the taxes abroad and is duly supported by evidences, then the claim of the assessee needs to be allowed. Similar view was also taken by this Tribunal in the case of Rameshwar Dnyaneshwar Bandewar Vs. ITO in ITA No. 2402/PUN/2024 order dated 23.12.2024 and Nandkumar Chandra Vs. ITO in ITA No. 2329/PUN/2024, order dated 23.12.2024. 6.Respectfully, following the above referred decisions of the Coordinate Benches and this Tribunal, we find that in the instant case, claim of FTC by the assessee is denied only for delay in filing of Form No. 67 and no discrepancy has been noticed in the contents of Form No. 67 and therefore considering that Form No. 67 is directory is nature, we direct the Ld.AO to accept the claim of the assessee made through Form No. 67 and after necessary verification should allow the FTC claimed by the assessee. Grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are allowed.”