ABRAHAM BENJAMIN PAVUTHERIL,ERNAKULAM vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX ( IT) , KOCHI
Facts
The non-resident assessee claimed foreign tax credit under Section 90 for AY 2013-14. The Assessing Officer denied this claim, confirmed by the CIT(A), due to the non-production of a Tax Residency Certificate during the original assessment proceedings.
Held
The Tribunal admitted the Tax Residency Certificate as additional evidence, noting it was obtained after the original assessment. The matter was remanded to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication to consider this additional evidence.
Key Issues
Whether the assessee is entitled to foreign tax credit under Section 90 when the Tax Residency Certificate was submitted as additional evidence before the Tribunal after the original assessment.
Sections Cited
143(3), 90
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, COCHIN BENCH
Before: SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO, AM & SHRI SOUNDARARAJAN K., JM
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL COCHIN BENCH BEFORE SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO, AM AND SHRI SOUNDARARAJAN K., JM ITA No. 636/Coch/2023 Assessment Year: 2013-14 Abraham Benjamin Pavutheril .......... Appellant G-14 Panampilly Nagar, Cochin 682036 [PAN: ATCPP5926F] vs. Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax (IT) .......... Respondent Circle - 1, Kochi Appellant by: Smt. Parvathy Ammal, CA Respondent by: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R. Date of Hearing: 03.02.2025 Date of Pronouncement: 21.02.2025
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)-12, Bengaluru [CIT(A)], dated 20.07.2023 for Assessment Year (AY) 2013-14.
Brief facts of the case are that the appellant is a non resident. The return of income for AY 2013-14 filed on 31.07.2013 declaring a total income of Rs. 22,19,650/-. Against the said return of income, the assessment was completed by the ACIT (IT), Circle -1, Kochi (hereinafter called "the AO") vide order dated 22.03.2016 passed
2 ITA No. 636/Coch/2023 Abraham Benjamin Pavutheril u/s. 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act) after making addition of interest on I.T. refund of Rs. 4,435/-. However, he denied the benefit of foreign tax credit u/s. 90 of the Act of Rs. 2,71,849/- for failure of the assessee to produce the Tax Residency Certificate issued by the Government of Qatar.
Being aggrieved, an appeal was filed before the CIT(A), who vide the impugned order confirmed the action of the AO. \
Being aggrieved, the appellant is in appeal before us in the present appeal.
During the course of hearing before us the appellant filed additional evidence in the form of Tax Residency Certificate dated 08.09.2020. The same could not be produced before the lower authorities as it was obtained subsequently on completion of the assessment proceedings. Thus, it is prayed that the matter may be restored to the AO for de novo consideration.
On the other hand the learned Sr. DR has no objection to remand the matter to the file of the AO to consider the additional evidence.
We have heard the rival contentions of both the parties and perused the material available on record.
In the facts and circumstances of the matter, we admit the additional evidence filed by the assessee. Since the lower authorities
3 ITA No. 636/Coch/2023 Abraham Benjamin Pavutheril had no opportunity to consider the additional evidence, we remand the matter to the file of the AO for de novo adjudication of the issue after considering the additional evidence filed before the Tribunal. All other contentions raised by the appellant are left open before the AO.
In the result, appeal stands allowed for statistical purposes.
Order pronounced in the open court on 21st February, 2025.
Sd/- Sd/- (SOUNDARARAJAN K.) (INTURI RAMA RAO) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Cochin, Dated: 21st February, 2025 n.p. Copy to: 1. The Appellant 2. The Respondent 3. The Pr. CIT concerned 4. The Sr. DR, ITAT, Cochin 5. Guard File By Order
Assistant Registrar ITAT, Cochin
