HEMLATA PATEL,DEWAS vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER , DEWAS

ITA 410/IND/2025Status: DisposedITAT Indore06 February 2026AY 2023-202410 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the impugned order and the intimation order were not proper. The Tribunal noted that the return of income and Form 67 were both filed on December 31, 2023. The reasoning of the CIT(A) that there was a delay in filing Form 67 because the due date for filing the return under section 139(1) was July 31, 2023, was found to be an insufficient ground to deny the substantive benefit of FTC. The Tribunal observed that the assessee's claim was established with proof filed on the same date as the ROI, and the Revenue had not questioned the authenticity or genuineness of the FTC. The Tribunal found the issue to be covered by its own decision in ITANo.176/Ind/2024 and a decision of the ITAT Chandigarh Bench in ITANo.747/Chd/2023 (Ashish Sood vs. DCIT Circle (1)-(1) Chandigarh). Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the impugned order and remanded the case to the AO to grant due appreciation/credit for the FTC after verification of Form 67. The issue of opportunity of being heard was not expressly decided but implicitly addressed by the remand.

What were the facts?

The assessee, Hemlata Patel, is challenging an order passed by the CIT(A) for Assessment Year 2023-24. The dispute arose from an intimation order under section 143(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, issued by the AO, which created a demand of Rs. 1,29,640. The assessee, a UK pensioner who became a resident in India for AY 2023-24, filed her return of income late on December 31, 2023, declaring a total income of Rs. 35,30,130. She also filed Form 67 on the same date to claim foreign tax credit (FTC) of Rs. 1,49,437 on her UK pension income. The AO, processing under section 143(1), disallowed the FTC on the grounds that Form 67 was not filed within the prescribed time limit. The CIT(A) upheld this disallowance, dismissing the assessee's appeal.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the disallowance of Foreign Tax Credit (FTC) of Rs. 1,49,437 by the AO under section 143(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for non-filing of Form 67 within the prescribed time limit, is legally valid? 2. Whether the CIT(A) erred in not granting sufficient opportunity of being heard during the appellate proceedings? Assessee's Contentions: The assessee argued that the impugned order and intimation order were bad in law and violated principles of natural justice. She contended that Form 67 was filed electronically on December 31, 2023, the same date as the return of income, and that the AO wrongly denied the FTC. The assessee relied on the decision of the Tribunal in ITANo.176/Ind/2024 (Asha Rani Pandya vs. DCIT/ACIT 1(1) Indore) and stated that the FTC claim was established with proof filed on the same date as the ROI. The assessee also claimed a lack of sufficient opportunity of being heard. Revenue's Contentions: The Revenue supported the impugned order and intimation order.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 253,Section 250,Section 143(1),Section 90,Section 90A,Section 139(1),Section 246A,Section 143(1)(a)(ii)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, INDORE BENCH, INDORE

Before: SHRI B.M. BIYANI & SHRI PARESH M JOSHI

For Appellant: Shri Shashank Sharma, AR
For Respondent: Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr.DR
Hearing: 29.01.2026Pronounced: 06.02.2026

Per Paresh M Joshi, J.M.:

This is an Appeal filed by the Assessee under section 253 of the income tax Act 1961,[ herein after referred to as the Act for the sake of brevity] before this tribunal as & by way of a second Appeal. The Assessee is aggrieved by the order bearing Number:-ITBA/APL/S/250/2024-25/1073139567 (1) dated 11.02.2025 passed by the Ld. CIT(A) u/s 250 of the Act, which is herein after referred to as the “Impugned

order”. The Relevant Assessment year is 2023-24 and the Hemlata Patel ITA No. 410/Ind/2025 - A.Y.2023-24

corresponding previous year period is from 01.04.2022 to 31.03.2023. 2. Factual Matrix

2.

1 That as and by way of an “intimation order” issued u/s 143(1) of the Act, dated 22.03.2024 whereby a d

The order continues below.

Read the full judgment

A free account opens 10 full judgments a month. Re-reading one you have already opened does not count again.

Create a free accountSign in

See plans and prices

The summary, the parties, the sections and the citations above are open to everyone and always will be. Only the text of the order and the PDF are metered.

More judgments on Section 90

All 1,075 judgments and leading authorities on Section 90 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →