Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee claimed Foreign Tax Credit (FTC) of Rs. 2,31,471/-. The CPC disallowed the claim because Form No. 67 was filed beyond the due date for filing the return of income.
Held
The Tribunal held that filing of Form No. 67 is directory and not mandatory. Therefore, even if filed belatedly, it should be considered for allowing FTC, provided the taxes were paid abroad and supported by evidence.
Key Issues
Whether the belated filing of Form No. 67 bars the claim of Foreign Tax Credit when the conditions under Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement are met.
Sections Cited
250, 143(1)(a)
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, PUNE BENCHES “SMC”, PUNE
Before: DR.MANISH BORAD & SHRI S.S.VISWANETHRA RAVI
PER DR. MANISH BORAD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER :
The captioned appeal at the instance of assessee pertaining the assessment year 2021-22 is directed against the order dated 08.11.2024 framed by Addl/JCIT(A), Jodhpur passed u/s.250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ( in short ‘the Act’) which inturn is arising out of the Intimation order dated 05.07.2022 passed u/s.143(1)(a) of the Act.
When the appeal was called for, none appeared on behalf of the assessee despite service of notice of hearing. However, assessee has filed a letter dated 17.02.2025 requesting to decide the appeal on the basis of paper book and written submissions. We accordingly proceed to adjudicate the appeal with the assistance of ld. Departmental Representative.
Sandeep Damodar Jadhav 3. In the instant appeal, assessee has raised as many as six grounds and perusal of the same indicate that the sole grievance of the assessee is that the ld.CIT(A) erred in not granting the Foreign Tax Credit (FTC) of Rs.2,31,471/- merely on the ground that Form No.67 which was required to be filed in support of the claim of FTC was filed beyond the due date of filing the return of income.
On going through the written submissions filed by the assessee, we notice that it has been consistently held by the Coordinate Benches as well as this Tribunal that filing of Form No.67 is merely directory in nature and not mandatory and therefore even if it is filed belatedly the same should be considered for allowing FTC. Ld. Departmental Representative failed to controvert the submissions by the assessee by placing any other binding precedent.
We have heard the ld. Departmental Representative and perused the record placed before us. Assessee is aggrieved for non grant of FTC of Rs.2,31,471/-. The CPC while processing the return u/s.143(1)(a) of the Act for the A.Y. 2021-22 did not allow the FTC as Form No.67 filed in support of claim of FTC was filed beyond the due date. The issue under consideration is no longer res integra and we considering the decision of Coordinate Bench, Hyderabad in the case of Ashish Agrawal Vs. ITO in dated 26.09.2023 who is another employee of the very same company of which the assessee is employee, i.e. Emerson Electric Company (India) Private Limited and the Tribunal held that filing of Form No.67 is only directory since Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement overrides the Act and Rules and therefore if the assessee has paid the taxes abroad and is duly supported by evidence, then the claim of the assessee Sandeep Damodar Jadhav needs to be allowed. Similar view was also taken by this Tribunal in the case of Rameshwar Dnyaneshwar Bandewar Vs. ITO in order dated 23.12.2024 and Nandkumar Chandra Vs. ITO in order dated 23.12.2024.
Respectfully following the above referred decisions of the Coordinate Benches and this Tribunal, we find that in the instant case, claim of FTC by the assessee is denied only for delay in filing of Form No.67 and no discrepancy has been noticed in the contents of Form No.67 and therefore considering that Form No.67 is directory is nature, we direct the Assessing Officer to accept the claim of the assessee made through Form No.67 and after necessary verification should allow the FTC claimed by the assessee. Grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are allowed.
In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed.
Order pronounced on this 21st day of March, 2025.