Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee, an individual with income from India and Australia, claimed Foreign Tax Credit (FTC) of Rs. 11,51,500/- for Australian taxes paid. This claim was disallowed by CPC, resulting in a demand. Subsequent rectification requests provided no relief, and the CIT(A) dismissed the assessee's appeal due to delay in filing.
Held
The Tribunal condoned the delay, acknowledging the assessee's circumstances and repeated rectification attempts. It held that the CIT(A) erred in not considering the genuine reasons for the delay. The matter was remanded to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication of the FTC claim under sections 90/90(2) as per the Income Tax Act, 1961, after providing the assessee an opportunity of hearing.
Key Issues
Condonation of delay in filing appeal; Admissibility of Foreign Tax Credit (FTC) for tax paid in Australia.
Sections Cited
90, 90(2), 139(1), 143(1), 154
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, AHMEDABAD “D” BENCH
Before: Dr. BRR Kumar & Ms. Suchitra Kamble
आदेश/ORDER Per Suchitra Kamble, Judicial Member:
This is an appeal filed against the order dated 22-07- 2025 passed by CIT(A), Ahmedabad-13 for assessment year 2019-20.
The grounds of appeal
are as under:- “1. The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) -13, AHMEDABAD has erred both in law and on facts in not condoning the delay and thereby dismissing the appeal filed against order u/s 154 of the Act in which the ground of Foreign Tax Credit u/s 90/90(2) of the IT Act was not given was not allowed.
2. On the facts and circumstances of the appellants case, considering the reasonable cause and legal position, the delay in filing appeal ought to have been condoned and appeal having
3. The ld CIT(Appeals) also erred both in law and on facts in relying on various decisions as against the Apex Court judgments as the appellant litigating could not have gained by deliberately not filing appeal in time. It be so held now and order passed by ld CIT(A) be set aside to grant the relief sought and to decide the ground on merits.
4. On the facts and circumstances of the appellants case, since Form No: 67 was later filed and was available when the appeal was heard, the credit of tax paid u/s 90/90(2) ought to have been granted by rectifying the mistake as powers of appellate authority are co-terminus with that of Assessing Officer. It be so directed now.
5. The Id CIT(APPEALS) ought to have allowed the grounds raised in toto and cancelled the demand by directing to give credit of FTC of Rs. 11,51,500/- as prayed for.
6. The appellant craves leave to add, alter, modify or delete any of the grounds at the time of hearing.”
3. The assessee is an individual and derived salary income from JP Morgan Services India Pvt. Ltd. which was received in India for the period April, 2018 to August, 2018. The assessee is also having source of income from Autralia, income from salary AUD $ 78601/- from Tyoto Finance for the period October, 2018 to March, 2019. The assessee filed return u/s. 139(1) showing gross total income of Rs. 49,68,411/- for assessment year 2019- 20 dated 02-08-2019 including income earned in Australia. The assessee had shown income from Australia and claimed total taxable royalty 90/91 i.e. deduction of tax which was already paid in Australia amounting to Rs. 11,51,500/-. The assessee received an intimation order u/s. 143(1) from the Department dated 23-03-2010 in which the Double Taxation Relief u/s. 90/91 was not allowed by the CPC and the revenue raised demand amounting to Rs. 14,32,900/-. Later on, the assessee filed Form 67 on 08-04-2021 as per rule 128 of the Act. after Rajat Rajendraprasad Rastogi, A.Y. 2019-20 receiving the intimation order, the assessee filed rectification request dated 08-04-2021 and rectification was processed with demand due dated 29th April, 2021. The assessee again filed rectification request u/s. 154 dated 22nd March, 2022 and the said rectification was processed with demand due dated 19th August, 2024. Since the Assessing Officer has not granted any relief u/s. 90/91 amounting Rs. 11,51,500/-, the assessee filed appeal before the CIT(A). The CIT(A) dismissed the appeal of the assessee.
The ld. A.R. submitted that the CIT(A) dismissed the appeal on the ground that of delay thereby calculating the delay from 8- 4-2024 but has not taken cognizance that the request of assessee for rectification u/s. 154 dated 8th April, 2021 and 22nd March, 2022 was processed on 29th April, 2021 dated 19th August, 2024 respectively. Therefore, there was no deliberate delay before the CIT(A). Thus, the ld. A.R. submitted that the Assessing Officer be directed to give the credit of tax paid u/s. 90/91 of the Act relating to the tax paid in Australia.
The ld. D.R. relied upon the assessment order and the order of the CIT(A).
We have heard both the parties and perused all the 6. material available on record. It is pertinent to note that the assessee was not staying in India continuously and through help of tax consultant only perusing the rectification filed on 27-05-2022. The CIT(A) was not right in not taking cognizance of the genuine reason of the assessee in filing the belated appeal before the CIT(A). Therefore, it will be appropriate to condone the delay in filing the appeal before 3 Rajat Rajendraprasad Rastogi, A.Y. 2019-20 the CIT(A). Since the issue is related to tax paid in Australia and the credit towards the same to the assessee as per Income Tax Act, 1961. Therefore, it will be appropriate to remand back this matter to the file of the Assessing Officer for proper verification of the issue and adjudicate the same as per Income Tax Law. Needless to say, the assessee be given opportunity of hearing by following principles of natural justice.
In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purpose.