Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee, an individual, filed a return of income declaring Rs. 81,08,750/- and Form 67 for foreign tax credit. The return was processed by CPC, which denied the foreign tax credit due to Form 67 not being filed within the prescribed time limit.
Held
The Tribunal held that the filing of Form 67 is procedural and the time limit prescribed is directory, not mandatory. The CPC was not justified in denying the foreign tax credit solely on the ground of delayed filing of Form 67.
Key Issues
Whether the CPC was justified in denying the claim for foreign tax credit on the ground that Form 67 was not submitted before the due date specified in Rule 128 of the Income Tax Rules.
Sections Cited
Section 143(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, Rule 128 of the Income Tax Rules
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Detected automatically from the text. The count shows how many other judgments on BharatTax rely on the same authority.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, COCHIN BENCH
Before: SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO, AM & SHRI SOUNDARARAJAN K., JM
O R D E R Per: Inturi Rama Rao, AM This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Kochi [CIT(A)] dated 08.03.2025 for Assessment Year (AY) 2017-18.
Brief facts of the case are that the appellant is an individual deriving income under the head ‘Salary’. The return of income for AY 2017-18 was filed on 27.07.2017 declaring income of Rs. 81,08,750/-. The appellant also filed Form 67 on 13.04.2018 in
The said return of income was processed by the CPC u/s. 143(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act) vide intimation dated 30.03.2019 denying the credit for foreign tax credit on the ground that Form 67 was not filed within the prescribed time limit.
Being aggrieved, an appeal was filed before the CIT(A), who vide the impugned order confirmed the action of the CIC.
Being aggrieved, the appellant is in appeal before this Tribunal in the present appeal.
We have heard the rival contentions and perused the material available on record. The only issue that arises for our consideration is whether the CPC was justified in denying the claim for foreign tax credit on the ground that Form 67, as required under rule 128 of the Income Tax Rules, was not submitted before the due date specified therein. Admittedly, Form 67 was submitted on 13.04.2018 whereas the return of income was processed on 30.03.2019 which means that From 67 was very much available at the time of processing the return by CPC. It is settled position of law that filing of the prescribed form for claiming the benefit under the provisions of Income Tax is procedural in nature and the time limit prescribed under sub-rule (9) of Rule 128 of the Income Tax Rules is only directory in nature. Reference in this regard can be made to the Krishna Muniramaiah decision of the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case of Deepak Pragjibhai Gondaliya v. PCIT [2025] 175 taxmann.com 985 and the decisions of the Hon'ble Madras High Court in the case of Venkatesh Krishnamooarti v. PCIT [2024] 169 taxmann.com 339 and Duraiswamy Kumaraswamy v. PCIT [2023] 460 ITR 615. In the light of this legal position, we are of the considered opinion that the CPC was not justified in denying foreign tax credit to the appellant. Accordingly, we restore the matter to CPC to amend the intimation allowing foreign tax credit to the assessee.
In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed.
Order pronounced in the open court on 14th August, 2025.