SENTHIL NATHAN RAMAKRISHNA BABU,CHENNAI vs. ITO, CIRCLE 17(7), CHENNAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1990/CHNY/2024Status: DisposedITAT Chennai09 October 2024AY 2018-192 pages

In favour of the assessee: the assessee's appeal was allowed. From the AI summary of this appeal.

AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that filing Form 67 is directory in nature, not mandatory, following previous High Court and Tribunal decisions. Therefore, the CIT(A) was directed to grant the foreign tax credit after verifying the form.

What were the facts?

The assessee filed a revised return of income to claim foreign tax credit, but the CIT(A) denied it because Form 67 was not filed with the original return. The assessee argued that the condition was directory, not mandatory.

What were the issues?

Whether the filing of Form 67 along with the return of income is a mandatory or directory requirement for claiming foreign tax credit.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Rule 128(9)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Heard together (2 matters)

ITA No.1491/Chny/2023
WP No.5834 of 2022

Read from the judgment's own cause title. This page is filed under one of them.

(िनधा*रण वष* / Assessment Year: 2018-19) Shri Senthil Nathan Ramakrishna Babu ITO Plot No.14, 1st floor, Block-I, बनाम/ Circle-17(7), Rajesh Nagar, 1st Street, Pallikaranai, Chennai Vs. Chennai-600 100. �थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./TAN/PAN No. AFYPR-7664-G (अपीलाथ�/Appellant) : (��थ� / Respondent) अपीलाथ�कीओरसे/ Appellant by : Shri V. Balaji (CA) – Ld.AR ��थ�कीओरसे/Respondent by : Ms. R. Anita (Addl.CIT) -Ld. Sr. DR सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date of Hearing : 24-09-2024 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date of Pronouncement : 09-10-2024 आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal (Accountant Member)

1.

Aforesaid appeal by assessee for Assessment Year (AY) 2018-19 arises out of an order passed by Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi [CIT(A)] on 06-06-2024 in the matter of an intimation issued by CPC, Bengaluru u/s 143(1) on 20-03-2020 denying Foreign Tax Credit of Rs.9.17 Lacs as claimed by the assessee u/s 90. The same was denied for want of filing of requisite Form 67 along with return of income.

2.

It emerges that the assessee filed Form 67 with revised return of income as filed on 30-03-2019 to lay claim on the foreign tax credit. However, Ld. CIT(A) upheld the intimation on the ground that Form 67 as required under Rule 128(9) was not furnished along with return of income u/s 139(1). This condition was mandatory and not directory as pleaded by the assessee. Aggrieved, the assessee is in further appeal before us.

3.

We find that the issue of foreign tax credit is covered in assessee’s favor by the decision of this Tribunal in the case of ITO vs. Smt. Chengam Durga (ITA No.1491/Chny/2023 dated 08-04-2024). The bench, considering the decision of Hon’ble High Court of Madras in the case of Duraiswamy Kumaraswamy (WP No.5834 of 2022 & ors. order dated 06.10.2023), held that filing of this form in terms of Rule 128 was only directory in nature. The rule is only for the implementation of the provisions of the act and it would always be directory in nature. Respectfully following the same, we direct Ld. CIT(A) to grant impugned Foreign Tax Credit to the assessee after verifying Form No.67.

4.

The appeal stand allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced on 9th October, 2024 Sd/- Sd/- (ABY T. VARKEY) (MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL) �ाियक सद" /JUDICIAL MEMBER लेखा सद" / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER चे1ई Chennai; िदनांक Dated :09-10-2024 DS आदेशकीIितिलिपअ'ेिषत/Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. अपीलाथ�/Appellant 2. ��थ�/Respondent 3. आयकरआयु:/CIT Chennai. 4. िवभागीय�ितिनिध/DR 5. गाड?फाईल/GF

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →