PRAMOD PRAKASH TARADE,RAIGAD vs. ITO, WARD-1, PANVEL, PANVEL

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCH “SMC”, PUNE BEFORE SHRI MANISH BORAD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI VINAY BHAMORE, JUDICIAL MEMBER आयकर अपील सं. / ITA No.2745/PUN/2025 िनधा�रण वष� / Assessment Year : 2021-22 Pramod Prakash Tarade, Vs. ITO, Ward-1, Panvel. A-2, Sai Ameya CHS, Plot No.28, Sector-12, Kharghar, Panvel, Raigad- 410210. PAN : AEVPT9870L Appellant Respondent Assessee by : Shri Tarun G. (Virtual) Revenue by : Shri Sanjiv Kumar Verma Date of hearing : 31.08.2026 Date of pronouncement : 30.10.2026 आदेश / ORDER PER VINAY BHAMORE, JM: This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order dated 26.02.2025 passed by Ld. Addl./JCIT(A), Mysore [‘Ld. CIT(A)’] for the assessment year 2021-22. 2. There is delay in filing of the present appeal. In this regard, we find that the assessee has furnished an application for condonation of delay with an affidavit wherein it was stated that his mother was undergoing continuous medical treatment, including hospitalization, chemotherapy and regular medical supervision and

2 ITA No.2745/PUN/2025 the assessee, being the primary caregiver, was required to remain physically and emotionally present for her treatment, medical consultations, hospital admissions and post-treatment care. During this period, the assessee was under severe mental stress, financial strain and constant medical emergencies, which prevented him from effectively attending to appeal matters and instructing counsel within the prescribed limitation period, which resulted in delay in filing of the present appeal. After going through the application for condonation of delay, we are satisfied with the reasons mentioned in the application for condonation of delay duly supported by an affidavit that the applicant was prevented by sufficient & reasonable cause for not filing the appeal within the prescribed time limit. After hearing Ld. DR, we condone the delay and proceed to adjudicate the appeal. 3. Facts of the case, in brief, are that the assessee is a salaried employee and claimed Foreign Tax Credit (FTC) in his return of income, however, Form 67 for claiming FTC could not be furnished along with return of income filed u/s 139(1) of the IT Act, therefore, vide order dated 22.03.2022 the return was processed by CPC raising a demand of Rs.1,18,000/- by denying the relief of Foreign

3 ITA No.2745/PUN/2025 Tax Credit in the absence of Form 67. The assessee furnished rectification application u/s 154 of the IT Act against the above intimation, which was also rejected by CPC vide order dated 29.12.2022. Against which the assessee filed an appeal before Ld. CIT(A), who vide order 24.06.2023 dismissed the appeal. Being aggrieved with the order of Ld. CIT(A) dated 24.06.2023, the assessee approached before the Tribunal, the Tribunal vide order dated 22.02.2024 dismissed the appeal by observing as under :- “6. We have heard both the parties and perused the records. It is an admitted fact by the assessee that assessee had not filed Form No.67 for A.Y.2021-22 i.e.the year under consideration. Assessee claims that assessee has inadvertently selected the dropdown box for A.Y.2020-21. Therefore, foreign tax credit was not allowed under section 143(1) of the Act as there was no Form No.67. As per Rule 128 of the Income Tax Rules, it is mandatory to file Form No.67 along with return of income within the due date mentioned under section 139(1) of the Act. The assessee filed a rectification application and requested to grant foreign tax credit. Admittedly, subsequently i.e. o 04.08.2022 assessee filed Form No.67. Thus, admittedly Form No.67 was not filed within the time allotted under section 139(1) of the Act, but it was filed much beyond the prescribed time limit. 6.1 Assessee had filed a rectification application under section 154 of the Act. Under section 154, only a mistake which is apparent from record can be rectified. In this case, at the time of passing the order under section 143(1) of the Act, admittedly Form No.67 was not available before the concerned authority passing the order under section 143(1), as Form No.67 was filed much beyond. The order under section 143(1) was passed on 22.03.2022, however, Form No.67 was filed on 04.08.2022. Thus, at the time of passing order under section 143(1), there was no Form No.67 before the concerned authorities. Therefore, foreign tax credit was denied to the assessee. In this case, there is no mistake apparent from the record. Therefore, there is no question of rectification. Meaning of Mistake Apparent from record:

4 ITA No.2745/PUN/2025 6.2 The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of ACIT Vs. Saurashtra Kutch Stock Exchange Ltd 305 ITR 227 (SC)/[2008] has held as under : Quote ,“37. In our judgment, therefore, a patent, manifest and selfevident error which does not require elaborate discussion of evidence or argument to establish it, can be said to be an error apparent on the face of the record and can be corrected while exercising certiorari jurisdiction. An error cannot be said to be apparent on the face of the record if one has to travel beyond the record to see whether the judgment is correct or not. An error apparent on the face of the record means an error which strikes on mere looking and does not need long-drawn-out process of reasoning on points where there may conceivably be two opinions. Such error should not require any extraneous matter to show its incorrectness. To put it differently, it should be so manifest and clear that no Court would permit it to remain on record. If the view accepted by the Court in the original judgment is one of the possible views, the case cannot be said to be covered by an error apparent on the face of the record. ” Unquote. 7. Thus, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that mistake should be self-evident to invoke rectification. In the case of assessee, there is no mistake apparent from the record in the order under section 143(1) of the Act. The assessee had filed Form No.67 on 04.08.2022 and wants that said Form No.67 shall be considered under section 154 of the Act. The said Form No.67 was not available when order under section 143(1) was passed. Hence, it cannot be considered under section 154 of the Act. Accordingly, we are of the opinion that there is no mistake apparent from the record. Therefore, we uphold the order under section 154 of the Act and order of ld.CIT(A). Accordingly, grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are dismissed. Though assessee has raised 09(nine) grounds, but no specific pleading was made with reference to other grounds other than requesting to consider Form No.67. Therefore, all other grounds are dismissed. The case law relied by assessee are distinguishable on facts. 8. In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed.” 4. From the perusal of above order of the Tribunal, we find that earlier the subject matter of appeal was rectification order passed by CPC and the Tribunal was of the opinion that there is no error in the

5 ITA No.2745/PUN/2025 order passed u/s 154 of the IT Act and dismissed the appeal filed by the assessee without going into merits of the case and without deciding the core issue of allowance of FTC as per Form 67 which was filed subsequently. Therefore, the assessee realized his error and filed another appeal against the original intimation order dated 22.03.2022 passed u/s 143(1) of the IT Act which was again dismissed by Ld. CIT(A) and now the assessee is in appeal before this Tribunal, against the impugned order dated 26.02.2025 passed by Ld. CIT(A), requesting to allow Foreign Tax Credit on the basis of Form 67 subsequently filed. 5. We have heard Ld. Counsels from both the sides and perused the material available on record including the paper book furnished by the assessee. In this regard, we find that it is the sole request of the assessee that the Foreign Tax Credit of Rs.1,02,316/- may kindly be allowed to the assessee since while filing Form 67 for the concerned assessment year i.e. for A.Y. 2021-22, the assessee wrongly selected the assessment year 2020-21 from drop down list, therefore, it was presumed that Form 67 was not filed for the relevant assessment year 2021-22.

6 ITA No.2745/PUN/2025 6. Considering the totality of the facts of the case and in the interest of justice, we deem it appropriate to set-aside the order passed by Ld. CIT(A) and restore the matter back to the file of the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer with a direction to allow the Foreign Tax Credit upon verification of Form 67 filed by the assessee. The assesse is also hereby directed to respond to the notices issued by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer and to produce relevant documents, submissions and evidences in support of his contentions without taking any adjournment under any pretext, otherwise the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer shall be at liberty to pass appropriate orders as per law. Thus, the grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes. 7. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced on this 30th day of October, 2026. Sd/- Sd/- (MANISH BORAD) (VINAY BHAMORE) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER पुणे / Pune; �दनांक / Dated : 30th October, 2026. Sujeet/DOC

7 ITA No.2745/PUN/2025 आदेश क� �ितिलिप अ�ेिषत / Copy of the Order forwarded to : अपीलाथ� / The Appellant. 1. ��यथ� / The Respondent. 2. 3. The Addl./JCIT(A), Mysore. 4. The Pr. CIT/CIT concerned. िवभागीय �ितिनिध, आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, “SMC” ब�च, 5. पुणे / DR, ITAT, “SMC” Bench, Pune. गाड� फ़ाइल / Guard File. 6. आदेशानुसार / BY ORDER, Sunil Kumar // True Copy // Digitally signed by Sunil Kumar Assistant Registrar More More आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, पुणे / ITAT, Pune. Date: 2026.11.06 12:05:00 +05'30'