MARIA LOURDERS ALMAZAN KHAN ,MUMBAI vs. ITO, WARD 42(2)(4), MUMBAI
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Mumbai “SMC” Bench, Mumbai.
Before: Smt. Kavitha Rajagopal (JM) & Shri Omkareshwar Chidara (AM) Maria Lourdes Almazan Khan 83, Falcons Crest 73, GD Ambedkar Marg, Parel East, Mumbai-400 012. Vs. ITO 42(2)(4) Kautilya Bhavan BKC, Bandra-E Mumbai-400051. PAN : ABPPK4522K Appellant
Per Omkareshwar Chidara (AM) :-
The following grounds of appeal were taken by the appellant, Maria
Lourdes Almazan Khan :
1. The Ld. Addl./JCIT(A) erred by upholding the CPC/Assessing
Officer's action of making an addition u/s. 143(1) without issuing adjustment intimation as mandated under sub clause (a) of section 143(1).
Addition without issuing adjustment intimation is without juri iction and bad in law.
The Ld. Addl./JCIT (A) erred in upholding the rectification order passed u/s. 154 of the Act by CPC, thereby denying the Foreign Tax Credit of Rs. 4,78,705/- u/s. 90/90A of the Act..
The Ld. Addl./JCIT (A) has erred in failing to consider the appellant's contention that no reasons were provided to the appellant in the intimation issued u/s. 143(1), nor in the rectification order passed u/s. 154 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. It is incumbent on the revenue authorities to communicate the rationale for such denial of credit for taxes.
During the appeal proceedings before the ITAT, Ld. AR of the appellant has argued that filing of Form No. 67 to claim Foreign Tax Credit (FTC) is only directory in nature and not mandatory, even though the word used in Maria Lourdes Almazan Khan
2
Rule 128(9) is “shall”. For this proposition, the Ld. AR of the appellant has submitted that this issue is squarely covered by the decisions of the Coordinate Benches in ITA No. 4270/Mum/2024 Gursharan Kaur Vs. ITO and in ITA No. 1896/Mum/2022 Rohan Hattangadi order dated 2.12.2022
etc. and filed copies of orders before the Bench.
Ld. DR relied on the orders of CPC and Ld. CIT(A).
After perusing the orders of the lower authorities and copies of the ITAT Orders filed by the Ld. AR of the appellant, it is decided to allow the appeal of the appellant as the issue is covered by the decisions of Coordinate Benches of Mumbai ITAT, as mentioned in para 2 of this order.
The appeal of appellant is allowed. Order pronounced in the open Court on 17/04/2025. (KAVITHA RAJAGOPAL) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Mumbai; Dated: 17/04/2025
Copy of the Order forwarded to :
The Appellant 2. The Respondent. 3. CIT 4. DR, ITAT, Mumbai 5. Guard file.
BY ORDER,
////
(