M/S. TRACK FOUR INFOTEC (I) PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. JURISDICTIONAL ASSESSING OFFICER, CIRCLE - 1(1), KOLKATA

ITA 859/KOL/2026Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata22 September 2026AY 2018-20197 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the disallowance of Foreign Tax Credit (FTC) of Rs. 12,09,970/- due to the delay in filing Form 67 was erroneous. The Tribunal noted that the delay in filing Form 67 was a procedural lapse, and the assessee had paid taxes. It relied on various judicial pronouncements, including decisions by the Kolkata ITAT in cases like Ratanlal Bhura and Sobhan Lal Gangopadhyay, which held that filing Form 67 is directory and not mandatory. The Tribunal emphasized that Rule 128 of the Income Tax Rules does not prescribe disallowance of FTC for delayed filing of Form 67, and the Act itself (Sections 90/91) does not stipulate a timeline for filing such a declaration. The Tribunal found the CIT(A)'s differing view, without assigning reasons, to be legally unjustifiable. Therefore, the AO ought not to have denied the relief under Section 90 solely for the delay in filing Form 67. The appeal was allowed on this issue. The ground related to late fees on GST was dismissed as not pressed.

What were the facts?

The assessee, M/s. Track Four Infotec (I) Pvt. Ltd., filed its return of income for Assessment Year 2018-19 on November 30, 2018. The return was processed, and subsequently, the assessee filed a rectification under Section 154 on April 3, 2021. The Assessing Officer (AO) made additions to the total income, disallowing foreign tax credit of Rs. 12,09,970/- due to Form 67 being filed after the due date. The AO also treated late fees paid on GST as a penalty. The assessee appealed to the CIT(A), who dismissed the appeal. The assessee then filed an appeal before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT).

What were the issues?

1. Whether the disallowance of Foreign Tax Credit (FTC) of Rs. 12,09,970/- under Section 90/90A, due to the late filing of Form 67, is valid, considering it was filed after the due date for filing the return of income under Section 139(1)? Assessee's Contention: The assessee argued that the disallowance is contrary to settled law, as filing Form 67 is a procedural matter and not mandatory. They relied on judicial decisions, including those from the Madras High Court and ITAT Hyderabad, which held that Form 67 filing is directory. The assessee also stated that the income and foreign tax credit were disclosed in the original return. Revenue's Contention: The Departmental Representative (DR) supported the impugned order regarding the disallowance of foreign tax credit. 2. Whether the late fees paid on GST can be treated as a penalty, leading to a tax demand? Assessee's Contention: The assessee did not press this ground during arguments, and it was dismissed.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 154,Section 90,Section 90A,Section 91,Section 139(1)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “D” BENCH, KOLKATA

Before: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey

Per Pradip Kumar Choubey, Judicial Member:

This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order dated 19.0.2026 of the Office of the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi passed under Section 154 of the Assessment Year 2018-19 of the Income-Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”).

2.

The brief facts of the case of the assessee is that the assessee M/S TRACK FOUR INFOTEC (1) PVT. LTD is a regular In

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 154

All 8,676 judgments and leading authorities on Section 154 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →