KALYANASUNDARAM RAMASUBRAMANYAM,CHENNAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, CHENNAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 3322/CHNY/2024Status: DisposedITAT Chennai25 March 2025AY 2021-22Bench: SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL (Accountant Member), SHRI MANU KUMAR GIRI (Judicial 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 held that filing of Form 67 is directory in nature, not mandatory, for claiming FTC, relying on previous judgments. The CIT(A) was directed to grant the FTC after verifying Form 67.

What were the facts?

The assessee claimed Foreign Tax Credit (FTC) for AY 2021-22, but it was denied by CPC as Form 67 was filed belatedly after the due date for filing the return of income. The CIT(A) confirmed the denial.

What were the issues?

Whether belated filing of Form 67, after the due date of return, bars the claim of Foreign Tax Credit (FTC).

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 143(1),Section 90,Section 139(1),Section 128

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ‘C’ BENCH, CHENNAI

Before: HON’BLE SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL & HON’BLE SHRI MANU KUMAR GIRI

Hearing: 25.02.2025Pronounced: 25.03.2025

PER MANU KUMAR GIRI (Judicial Member) This appeal by the assessee is arising out of the order of the Commissioner of Income The captioned appeal filed by the assesseeinvolves an issue i.e., allowance of foreign tax credit (FTC). The appeal for AY 2021-22 arises out of an order passed by Learned Addl. /Joint Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-8, Mumbai, [CIT(A)] on 28-10-2024 in the matter of an intimation issued by CPC, Bengaluru u/s 143(1) on 05-07-2022 denying Foreign Tax Credit of Rs.1,48,670/- as claimed by the assessee u/s 90. The same was denied for want of filing of requisite Form 67 along with return of income.

2.

It emerges that the assessee filed original return of income on 30/11/2021 but it did not claim FTC of Rs.1,48,670/-. The assessee filed Form No. 67 on 25/07/2022 after due date of return which was 31.07.2021. The ITR was processed by CPC and credit was not allowed since Form No.67 was filed belatedly. The Ld. CIT(A) confirmed the action of CPC since this claim was not made in the original return of income. As per Rule 128(9), this form was required to be furnished along with return of income u/s 139(1). Aggrieved, the assessee is in further appeal before us.

3.

We find that the issue of foreign tax credit is covered in assessee’s favor by the decision of this Tribunal in the case of ITO vs. Smt. Chengam Durga (ITA No.1491/Chny/2023 dated 08-04-2024). The bench, considering the decision of Hon’ble High Court of Madras in the case of Duraiswamy Kumaraswamy (WP No.5834 of 2022 &ors. order dated 06.10.2023), held that filing of this form in terms of Rule 128 was only directory in nature. The rule is only for the implementation of the provisions of the act and it would always be directory in nature. Respectfully following the same, we direct Ld. CIT(A) to grant impugned Foreign Tax Credit to the assessee after verifying Form No.67. 4. In result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced on 25th day of March, 2025 at Chennai. (मनोज कुमार अ"वाल) (मनु कुमार िग"र) (MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL) (MANU KUMAR GIRI) लेखा सद" / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER "ाियक सद" / JUDICIAL MEMBER चे"ई Chennai: िदनांक Dated :25-03-2025 KV आदेश क" ""त"ल"प अ"े"षत /Copy to : 1. अपीलाथ"/Appellant 2. ""थ"/Respondent 3. आयकरआयु"/CIT, Chennai. 4. िवभागीय"ितिनिध/DR 5. गाड"फाईल/GF

More judgments on Section 90

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →