RAVIKIRAN GOPALRAO ALAVANDI,RATNAGIRI vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, PUNE

On the facts and the circumstances of the case and in law, it be held that delay in filing of form 67 procedural and not mandatory. Delay in filing form 67 should not lead to denial of FTC. Accordingly, the relief so denied be restored and just & due relied be given to the appellant.

The appellant craves to add, amend, alter or leave any of the above grounds of appeal.”

Ld.AR filed a paper book containing copy of Affidavit, copy of grievances raised, copy of ITR Acknowledgement, copy of Relevant part of ITR Form and copy of Form 67. Ld.AR submitted that ld.CIT(A) has not condoned the delay of 110 days. The delay was due to the fact that Assessee after receiving order u/s.143(1), filed a grievance petition before CBDT as Assessee’s Return of Income was processed by Centralized Processing Center(CPC) without giving International Tax Credit. Since assessee was pursuing alternative remedy, Assessee had not filed appeal within time. This is a Bonafide mistake on the part of the Assessee. Ld.AR submitted that ld.CIT(A) should have condoned the delay. Ld.AR invited our attention to the Affidavit filed by the Assessee. Ld.AR pleaded that ld.CIT(A) may be directed to condone the delay and decide the appeal on merit. Ld.AR invited our attention to Form No.67 for A.Y.2021-22 and submitted that otherwise Assessee is ITA No.666/PUN/2025 [A]

Ld.DR for the Revenue relied on the order of ld.CIT(A).

We have heard both the parties and perused the records. In this case, Assessee had filed Return of Income for A.Y.2021-22 on 29.10.2021, the due date for filing Return of Income as per order u/s.143(1) was 31.12.2021. Thus, assessee had filed Return of Income within the time. The Centralized Processing Center passed an order u/s.143(1) on 05.07.2022 without granting credit for International Tax. Assessee filed an appeal before the ld.CIT(A). The appeal was delayed before ld.CIT(A) by 110 days, the ld.CIT(A) dismissed the appeal as not admitted due to delay. Aggrieved by the order of ld.CIT(A), assessee has filed appeal before this Tribunal.

2 The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Esha Bhattacharjee Vs. Managing Committee of Raghunathpur Nafar Academy and others Civil Appeal Nos.8183-8184 of 2013 vide order dated 13/09/2013 has laid down following principles for deciding Condonation Application: Quote, “ 15. From the aforesaid authorities the principles that can broadly be culled out are:

3 The Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of EBR Vs. UOI [2018] 89 taxmann.com 194 (Bombay)[06-11-2017] has observed as under while condoning the delay in that case : Quote ,“ 12. In view of the law laid down by the Apex Court, it was not necessary for the petitioner to have explained each and every day's delay. On the contrary, the Apex Court held that when substantial justice and technical considerations are pitted against each other, the ITA No.666/PUN/2025 [A]

4 In these facts and circumstances of the case, we are convinced that grave injustice is caused to the assessee by not condoning the delay, by ld.CIT(A). Substantial justice is more important than procedural delay.

5 Respectfully following the judicial precedence, we direct the ld.CIT(A) to condone the delay and decide the appeal on merits. Therefore, we set aside the order of ld.CIT(A) to ld.CIT(A) for denovo adjudication. Assessee shall file all details before the ld.CIT(A). The ld.CIT(A) shall provide opportunity of hearing to the assessee. Accordingly, grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are allowed for statistical purpose.

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose.

गाडᭅफ़ाइल / Guard File. आदेशानुसार / BY ORDER,