RUBY BENJAMIN,CHENNAI vs. ITO, INTL TAXN WARD 2(1) CHE, INCOME TAX OFFICE - BSNL TOWER

ITA 2866/CHNY/2026Status: DisposedITAT Chennai23 September 2026AY 2020-213 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the filing of Form-67 is not mandatory, citing consistent decisions of the ITAT, Chennai Benches. The Tribunal accepted the assessee's contention that the provision is directory. Consequently, the Tribunal found that the assessee had a fair chance of succeeding on merits. In the interest of justice, the Tribunal set aside the order of the CIT(A) and remanded the matter back to the CIT(A) for fresh consideration. The CIT(A) was directed to condone the delay of 1482 days and adjudicate the issue on its merits. The grounds raised by the assessee were allowed for statistical purposes.

What were the facts?

The assessee, Ruby Benjamin, filed an appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)] for the assessment year 2020-21. The appeal was filed with a delay of 1482 days. The CIT(A) did not condone this delay and dismissed the appeal in limine. The issue before the CIT(A) was the disallowance of Foreign Tax Credit by the CPC due to the non-filing of Form-67. The assessee contended that filing Form-67 was directory, not mandatory. The CIT(A), not being satisfied with the reasons for the delay, dismissed the appeal without considering its merits. The assessee then filed an appeal before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), Chennai Bench.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the filing of Form-67 is mandatory or directory for claiming Foreign Tax Credit, as per Section 90 of the Income Tax Act, 1961? Assessee's contentions: The assessee argued before the CIT(A) that filing Form-67 is only directory and not mandatory. The ITAT, Chennai Benches have consistently held that filing of Form-67 is not mandatory. Revenue's contentions: The judgment does not record any specific contentions made by the revenue before the ITAT. However, the CPC disallowed Foreign Tax Credit for non-filing of Form-67, indicating the revenue's stance on the mandatory nature of the form.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 90

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Before: SHRI. INTURI RAMA RAO & BEFORE SHRI S.S. VISWANETHRA RAVI

Hearing: 09.09.2026

PER S.S. VISWANETHRA RAVI, JUDICIAL MEMBER:

This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order dated 17.03.2026 passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Chennai-16, for the assessment year 2020-21. 2. We find no representation on behalf of assessee nor filed any application seeking adjournment. The assessee called absent and we proceed to hear the Ld. DR and passed order considering the material available on record.

3.

At 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 →