GIRISH MALHOTRA,NEW DELHI vs. AO NUMBER 1, NEW DELHI

ITA 6967/DEL/2026Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 October 2026AY 2021-202210 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the filing of Form 67 is a directory, not a mandatory, requirement. It reasoned that a violation of a procedural norm does not adversely affect the substantive rights or claims of the assessee. The Tribunal noted that the assessee was claiming a legitimate right to FTC for foreign taxes paid. Citing numerous decisions of coordinate benches, including Isha Mago vs. Asstt. Director of Income Tax, Rameshwar Prasad Shrivastava vs. ITO, Vikash Daga vs. ACIT, and Sanjeev Agarwal vs. DCIT, the Tribunal emphasized that the provisions of the DTAA override the provisions of the Act and Rules to the extent they are beneficial to the taxpayer. Therefore, a mere procedural lapse in filing Form 67 belatedly should not lead to the disallowance of the FTC. The Assessing Officer was directed to allow the assessee's claim for foreign tax credit.

What were the facts?

The assessee, Girish Malhotra, an Indian citizen employed in Vietnam, was classified as a Resident for the Assessment Year 2021-22 due to COVID-19 travel restrictions. He declared his global income, including salary from Vietnam amounting to Rs. 38,35,383, on which Vietnamese tax of Rs. 12,12,239 was withheld. The assessee claimed Foreign Tax Credit (FTC) under Section 90/90A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, read with the applicable DTAA, and filed Form 67 on March 30, 2022. The Centralized Processing Centre (CPC) denied the FTC solely because Form 67 was not filed within the due date. The CIT(A) confirmed this action. The assessee appealed to the ITAT, arguing that Form 67 is a procedural and directory requirement, not mandatory, and its delayed filing should not extinguish the substantive right to claim FTC.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the denial of Foreign Tax Credit (FTC) amounting to Rs. 12,12,239 by the Assessing Officer (CPC) and confirmed by the CIT(A) is justified solely on the ground that Form 67 was not filed within the due date, turning on Section 90/90A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and the relevant DTAA. Assessee's Contentions: - Form 67 is a procedural and directory requirement, not mandatory. - Violation of procedural norms does not extinguish the substantive right to claim FTC. - Relied on various decisions of coordinate benches of the Tribunal. Revenue's Contentions: - Relied upon the orders of the lower authorities.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

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

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH ‘A’: NEW DELHI

For Appellant: Ms. Shweta Saini, Advocate, Ms. Aakansha, Advocate
For Respondent: Shri Balkishan Gopal, Sr. DR
Hearing: 07.10.2026Pronounced: 09.10.2026

PER S. RIFAUR RAHMAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER :

1.

The assessee has filed appeal against the order of the Learned Addl./JCIT (Appeals)-9, Mumbai [“Ld. CIT(A)”, for short] dated 29.04.2026 for the Assessment Year 2021-22. 2. The assessee has taken various grounds of appeal which reveals that the solitary grievance of the assessee is that the Ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming the action of the Assessing Officer, who denied the foreign

2 tax credit amounting to Rs.12,12,239/- for the only reason that Form 67 was not filed within due date by the assessee.

3.

At the time of hearing, ld. AR for the assessee brought to our notice brief facts of the case and his submissions as under. He submitted that the assessee is an

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 →

Latest GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →