NIRAV D. UDANI( EXECUTOR TO THE ESTATE OF LATE SHRI JITENDRA HATIBEN UDANI),MUMBAI vs. INT TAX WARD 4(3)(1), MUMBAI

Per : Narender Kumar Choudhry, Judicial Member:

This appeal has been preferred by the assessee against the order dated 20.12.2023, impugned herein, passed by the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) (in short Ld. Commissioner) under section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘the Act’) for the A.Y. 2019-20.

M/s. Nirav D. Udani (Executor To The Estate of Late Shri Jitendra Hatiben Udani) 2. In the instant case, the assessee being a US citizen but resident of India had declared his total income at Rs.40,40,626/- comprising the amount of Rs.6,70,090/- from salary (pension from Johnson & Johnson INC and amount of Rs.33,05,549/- as dividend income. The assessee has also claimed the relief of Rs.6,34,636/- under section 90 of the Act by filing form No.67. The CPC processed the income tax return of the assessee vide intimation dated 17.03.2021 under section 143(1) of the Act, however, did not grant the relief claimed under section 90 of the Act.

5. On the contrary, the Ld. D.R. refuted the claim of the assessee.

6.1 The Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of Duraiswamy Kumaraswamy Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax (2023) 156 taxmann.com 445 (Madras) has also dealt with the identical issue wherein the assessee filed the form No.67 after filing of the income tax return but before the finalisation of the assessment and ultimately allowed the claim of the assessee by holding i.e. form No.67 filed after the due date specified for furnishing the return of income under section 139(1) of the Act but before completion of the assessment proceedings and issuing the intimation under section 143(1) of the Act, then the assessee would be entitled to get the benefit of the relief as prescribed under section 90 of the Act.

M/s. Nirav D. Udani (Executor To The Estate of Late Shri Jitendra Hatiben Udani)

6.2 We further observe that the Hon’ble co-ordinate Bench of the Tribunal at Mumbai in the case of Sonakshi Sinha vs. Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) [2022] 142 taxmann.com414 (Mumbai - Trib.) also dealt with the identical issue and ultimately allowed the relief to the assessee who filed form No.67 belatedly but before the conclusion of the assessment proceedings.

6.3 Hence on the aforesaid analyzation, we are of the considered view: “where the form 67 is filed, may be belated i.e. after the due date specified for furnishing the return of income under section 139(1) of the Act but before completion of the assessment proceedings and/or issuing the intimation under section 143(1) of the Act, then the Assessee would be entitled to get the benefit of the relief as prescribed under section 90 of the Act . Hence the question framed is answered accordingly.

6.4 Coming to the instant case, admittedly the return of income was filed by the assessee under section 139(1) of the Act on 31.07.2019 and thereafter the form No.67 was filed on 31.12.2019 and subsequently the income tax return filed by the assessee was processed and completed under section 143(1) of the Act on 17.03.2021 which goes to show that though the assessee filed form No.67 after the due date of filing of the return under section 139 of the Act but before its is a fact that same was filed before conclusion of the assessment proceedings and/or issuing intimation under section 143(1) of the Act dated 17.03.2021, hence, respectfully following the judgments referred to above, we are inclined to allow the claim of the assessee.

M/s. Nirav D. Udani (Executor To The Estate of Late Shri Jitendra Hatiben Udani)

6. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed.

Order pronounced in the open court on 29.05.2024.