SAHIL JINDAL,NEW DELHI vs. ITO,WARD-47(1), DELHI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 4615/DEL/2024Status: DisposedITAT Delhi22 April 2025AY 2018-19Bench: Sh. Satbeer Singh Godara (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 condoned the delay, referencing the pandemic period and landmark judgments. It also accepted the assessee's substantive ground regarding foreign tax credit relief, finding the filing of Form 67 to be directory, not mandatory.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal for AY 2018-19 arose from an order where the lower appellate authority refused to condone a 1347-day delay in filing the appeal. The assessee had also sought rectification under Section 154.

What were the issues?

Whether the delay in filing the appeal can be condoned, considering the pandemic and ongoing rectification proceedings, and whether the disallowance of foreign tax credit for non-timely filing of Form 67 is justified.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 143(1),Section 154,Section 90,Section 90A

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cases cited in this judgment(3)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, DELHI BENCH ‘SMC’, NEW DELHI

Before: Sh. Satbeer Singh Godara

For Appellant: CA &
Hearing: 22.04.2025Pronounced: 22.04.2025

Asstt. Year : 2018-19 Sahil Jindal, Vs Income Tax Officer, C/o M/s Raj Kumar & Associates, L- Ward-47(1), 7A, LGF, South Extension, Part-2, New Delhi New Delhi-110049 (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) PAN No. AKGPJ8905P Assessee by: Sh. Raj Kumar, CA & Sh. Suraj Gupta, Adv. Revenue by : Sh. Sanjay Kumar, Sr. DR Date of Hearing: 22.04.2025 Date of Pronouncement: 22.04.2025 ORDER

This assessee’s appeal for Assessment Year 2018-19, arises against the Addl./JCIT(A)-11, Mumbai’s DIN & order No. ITBA/APL/S/250/2024-25/1067643278(1) dated 14.08.2024, in proceedings u/s 143(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short “the Act”).

2.

Heard both the parties at length. Case file perused.

3.

It is noticed at the outset that the learned lower appellate authority has refused to condone the assessee’s 1347 days delays in filing of the lower appeal instituted on 20.05.2024 against the assessment order dated 07.08.2020. That being the case, it is manifestly clear that most of the intervening time period herein above is covered under Covid-19 pandemic Sahil Jindal outbreak upto 28.02.2022 which already stood excluded for all intents/purposes as per hon’ble apex court landmark decision Cognizance for Extension of Limitation, in Re (2022) 441 ITR 722 (SC). This is further coupled with the fact that the assessee has filed his condonation petition that he had been pursuing section 154 rectification remedy before learned assessing authority as well.

4.

Faced with this situation, in and in light of the fact that the assessee has already explained the above period of delay of 1347 days institution of the lower appeal, the same stand condoned going by Collector Land Acquisition vs. Mst. Katiji & Ors (1987) 167 ITR 471 (SC).

5.

Next comes the sole substantive issue between the parties on merits wherein the learned lower authorities have denied foreign tax credit relief u/s 90/90A to the assessee amounting to Rs.3,98,842/- for want of timely filing of relevant Form 67. Case law V. Krishnamoorthy Vs. PCIT (2024) 169 taxmann.com 339 (Mad.) has already settled the issue against the department that the above compliance is directory than a mandatory provision in nature. The tribunal hereby accepts the assessee’s instant sole substantive ground in principle in very terms and the matter is restored back to the learned Assessing

More judgments on Section 154

All 8,676 judgments and leading authorities on Section 154 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →