KARTHIKEYAN CHELLADURAI MADASAMY,KANCHIPURAM vs. ITO, NCC-22(1), TAMBARAM

PDF · subscribers
ITA 2619/CHNY/2025Status: DisposedITAT Chennai26 November 2025AY 2019-20Bench: SHRI MANU KUMAR GIRI (Judicial Member), SHRI S.R.RAGHUNATHA (Accountant Member)1 pages

In favour of the assessee: the assessee's appeal was allowed. From the AI summary of this appeal.

AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal noted that the issue of foreign tax credit is covered by the Madras High Court's judgment in Duraiswamy Kumaraswamy, which held Rule 128 concerning Form 67 filing as directory. Therefore, the Tribunal directed the Assessing Officer to verify the assessee's eligibility for FTC.

What were the facts?

The assessee claimed foreign tax credit (FTC) of Rs.6,91,186/- for assessment year 2019-20. The CPC disallowed this claim while processing the return under section 143(1) because Form 67 was filed belatedly. The CIT(A) dismissed the assessee's appeal in limine due to a delay of 1328 days in filing, without adjudicating on merits.

What were the issues?

Whether the delay in filing Form 67 bars the claim for foreign tax credit when the High Court has held the rule to be directory?

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 90,Section 143(1),Section 128

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cases cited in this judgment(1)Show list

Detected automatically from the text. Citations are also linked where they appear in the judgment. The count shows how many other judgments on BharatTax rely on the same authority.

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ‘C’ BENCH: CHENNAI

Before: SHRI MANU KUMAR GIRI & SHRI S.R.RAGHUNATHA

Hearing: 19.11.2025

आदेश / O R D E R

PER MANU KUMAR GIRI, JM:

1.

This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order dated 28.08.2025 passed by the Addl/JCIT(A)-2, Pune for the assessment year 2019-20.

2.

The assessee raised 7 grounds of appeal amongst which, the only issue emanates for our consideration as to whether the ld. CIT(A) is justified in confirming the disallowance made by the Assessing Officer towards foreign tax credit claimed at Rs.6,91,186/- under section 90 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ["Act" in short] in the facts and circumstances of the case.

3. We note that the assessee filed his return of income for AY 2019- 20 after claiming foreign tax credit of Rs.6,91,186/-. The CPC passed intimation under section 143(1) of the Act dated 19.03.2021 by disallowing the claim of foreign tax credit. On appeal, the ld. CIT(A) dismissed the appeal in limine on account of delay of 1328 days in filing appeal. He has not adjudicated the issue on merits.

4.

The ld. AR for the assessee submits that the issue of foreign tax credit is covered by the judgment of the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of Duraiswamy Kumaraswamy (WP No. 5834 of 2022 & ors. Dated 06.10.2023 [460 ITR 615 (Madras). Hence, the ld. AR prayed for allowing the ground raised by the assessee.

5.

The ld. DR Ms. R. Anita, Addl. CIT relied on the order of the ld. CIT(A).

6.

Heard both the parties and perused the material available on record. In this case, the assessee claimed FTC of Rs.6,91,186/- under section 90 of the Act. The return filed by the assessee was processed under section 143(1) of the Act by denying the claim of FTC on account of the assessee filed Form 67 belatedly. WE find that the issue is covered by the decision of the Hon'ble High Court of Madras in the case of Duraiswamy Kumaraswamy (WP No. 5834 of 2022 & ors.

Dated 06.10.2023 [460 ITR 615 (Madras), wherein, the Hon'ble High Court has held that filing of aforesaid form in terms of Rule 128 is only directory in nature. The rule is only for the implementation of the provisions of the Act and it will always be directory in nature and decided the issue in favour of the assessee. Under the above facts and circumstances, we direct the Assessing Officer to verify, whether the assessee is eligible for foreign tax credit or not and pass order in accordance with law. Thus, the grounds raised by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes. statistical purposes.

Order pronounced on 26th day of November, 2025 at Chennai.

More judgments on Section 90

All 1,075 judgments and leading authorities on Section 90 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →