NARAYANAN RAMAKRISHNAN,KANCHEEPURAM vs. ADDL/JCIT (A), JODHPUR

ITA 760/CHNY/2026Status: DisposedITAT Chennai25 September 2026AY 2021-227 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What were the facts?

The assessee, Narayanan Ramakrishnan, filed his return of income for Assessment Year 2021-22 on March 21, 2022, under Section 139(4) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, declaring a total income of Rs. 73,55,420. The return was processed under Section 143(1), creating a demand of Rs. 25,54,860 against the declared Rs. 3,61,720. The assessee appealed to the Ld. Addl./JCIT(A), Jodhpur, who dismissed the appeal. The assessee then filed the present appeal before the ITAT with a delay of 102 days. The assessee had worked in Australia, earned a salary of Rs. 72,71,903, and paid Rs. 20,24,618 in taxes there. He claimed Foreign Tax Credit (FTC) under Section 90 read with Article 24(4)(a) of the India-Australia DTAA and Rule 128, but it was denied due to the belated filing of Form No. 67 and the return.

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the assessee is entitled to claim the Foreign Tax Credit (FTC) of Rs. 20,24,618. The delay in filing the return under Section 139(4) and Form No. 67 was considered a procedural lapse. The Tribunal relied on the jurisdictional High Court's decisions in *Venkatanarayanan Somayaji Lakshminarasimha v. PCIT* and *Duraiswamy Kumaraswamy v. Pr. CIT*, which held that Rule 128 is directory in nature and not mandatory, and that delays in filing Form 67 should be condoned in the interest of justice. The Tribunal found the order of the Ld. Addl./JCIT(A) to be erroneous. The operative direction was to set aside the impugned order and direct the CPC, Bengaluru, to accept the assessee's claim for FTC. The delay of 102 days in filing the appeal was also condoned. The Tribunal explicitly stated that there was no challenge to the entitlement or quantum of the FTC claim.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the assessee is entitled to claim Foreign Tax Credit (FTC) of Rs. 20,24,618 under Section 90 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, read with Article 24(4)(a) of the India-Australia DTAA, despite the belated filing of Form No. 67 and the return of income. Assessee's Contentions: - The delay in filing Form No. 67 is a procedural lapse and should be condoned, especially considering the Hon'ble Supreme Court's cognizance for extension of limitation due to the COVID-19 pandemic. - Amendments to Rule 128(9) are declaratory and curative, warranting retrospective application. - The denial of FTC for non-compliance with Rule 128(9) is erroneous as procedural requirements cannot override substantive provisions of the Act or DTAA. - Rule 128(9) is directory, not mandatory, as it does not provide for denial of FTC as a consequence of delayed filing. - Relied on the decisions in *Venkatanarayanan Somayaji Lakshminarasimha v. PCIT* [2025] 174 taxmann.com 754 (Mad.) and *Duraiswamy Kumaraswamy v. Pr. CIT* [2023] 156 taxmann.com 445 (Mad.). Revenue's Contentions: - The judgment records no specific contentions for the revenue.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 90,Section 139(4),Section 143(1),Section 250

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ‘A’ BENCH: CHENNAI

Before: HONOURABLE SHRI S.S. VISWANETHRA RAVI & SHRI GAGAN GOYAL

Hearing: 13.08.2026Pronounced: 25.09.2026

PER GAGAN GOYAL, AM: This is an appeal preferred by the assessee against the order of Ld. Addl. /JCIT(A), (hereinafter referred as the ‘Ld. Addl./JCIT(A)), Jodhpur dated 19.08.2025, for the Assessment Year (hereinafter referred as the ‘AY’) 2021-22. GROUDS OF APPEAL 1 The learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) erred 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 90

All 1,055 judgments and leading authorities on Section 90 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →