DILIP ANANTHANARAYANAN,BANGALORE vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-4(3)(1), BANGALORE

ITA 2006/BANG/2026Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore24 September 2026AY 2020-214 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the Foreign Tax Credit (FTC) of Rs. 3,20,415/- cannot be denied merely because Form No. 67 was filed after the prescribed due date. The Tribunal noted that the assessee filed the return of income and Form No. 67 on 12.01.2021, which was only two days after the extended due date of 10.01.2021. The denial of FTC was solely based on this delay. The Tribunal relied on the decision of a Coordinate Bench in Deepak Shimoga Padmaraju v. ADIT/ITO, which followed Vinodkumar Lakshmipathi v. CIT(A), NFAC, Delhi. These decisions held that Rule 128(9) of the Income-tax Rules, 1962, does not mandate disallowance of FTC for delay in filing Form No. 67, and that such filing is a directory requirement, not fatal to the claim. The Tribunal reasoned that FTC is a substantive claim available to the assessee, and a procedural delay in filing the form, when the form has been subsequently filed and the claim is otherwise eligible, should not lead to denial. Accordingly, the order of the CIT(A) was set aside, and the Assessing Officer was directed to allow the FTC of Rs. 3,20,415/-, subject to verification of the claim and the filed Form No. 67. The grounds raised by the assessee were allowed.

What were the facts?

The assessee, Dilip Ananthanarayanan, an individual, was deputed to the USA for a short period and paid US income tax amounting to Rs. 3,20,415/-. He included this US income in his gross total income and claimed Foreign Tax Credit (FTC) of Rs. 3,20,415/- under Section 90 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act). The assessee filed his return of income on 12.01.2021. The processing of the return under Section 143(1) disallowed the FTC claim because Form-67 was not filed within the prescribed time limit, which was the due date under Section 139(1) of the Act. The assessee appealed to the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)], arguing that Form-67 was filed along with the return of income and that its late filing was a procedural delay not fatal to the substantive FTC claim. The CIT(A) dismissed the appeal, upholding the disallowance as Form-67 was filed on 12.01.2021, after the extended due date of 10.01.2021.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the Foreign Tax Credit (FTC) of Rs. 3,20,415/- can be denied to the assessee merely because Form No. 67 was filed after the prescribed due date, turning on Section 90 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and Rule 128(9) of the Income-tax Rules, 1962. Assessee's Contentions: - Form No. 67 was filed on 12.01.2021 along with the return of income, with a delay of only two days. - Filing of Form No. 67 within the prescribed time is directory and not mandatory. - A substantive claim of FTC cannot be denied solely due to a delay in filing Form No. 67. - Relied on various judicial decisions. Revenue's Contentions: - The assessee admittedly did not file Form No. 67 within the prescribed due date. - The Assessing Officer (CPC) was justified in denying the FTC claim. - The order of the CIT(A) does not warrant interference.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 90,Section 139(1),Section 143(1),Section 250

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, BANGALORE BENCHES, BANGALORE

Before: SHRI WASEEM AHMED & SHRI KESHAV DUBEY

PER SHRI WASEEM AHMED, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER:

The present appeal has been instituted by the assessee against the order of the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) under the National Faceless Appeal Centre (hereafter the learned CIT(A), passed under section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1963 (hereinafter the

The order continues below.

Read the full judgment

A free account opens 10 full judgments a month. Re-reading one you have already opened does not count again.

Create a free accountSign in

See plans and prices

The summary, the parties, the sections and the citations above are open to everyone and always will be. Only the text of the order and the PDF are metered.

More judgments on Section 90

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →