INCOME TAX OFFICER NCW 19(4), CHENNAI vs. CHENGAM DURGA, CHENNAI

आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal (Accountant Member)

by the Revenue read as under:

1. The order of the Ld. CIT(A) is contrary to facts and circumstances of the case.

2. The Ld.CIT(A) erred in holding that filing of Form 67 cannot be treated as mandatory rather it is directory in nature by placing reliance on the decision of ITAT Bangalore in the case of Brinda Ramakrishna Vs. ITO in and decision of the ITAT, Jaipur in ITA No.71/JP /2023 dated 10.05.2023.

3. The Ld. CIT(A) erred in allowing relief to the assessee by placing reliance on the decision of ITAT Bangalore in the case of Brinda Ramakrishna Vs. ITO in ITA No.454/Bang/2021 and decision of the ITAT, Jaipur in ITA No.71/JP/2023 dated 10.05.2023 whereas it is settled law that power of condonation of CBDT/Central Govt. cannot be taken away by any other person. As is evident, the revenue is aggrieved by grant of foreign tax credit (FTC) despite the fact that Form No.67 was not filed by the assessee within due date of filing of return of income. Having heard rival submissions, our adjudication would be as under.

2. The assessee filed return of income on 09.09.2021 and claimed relief u/s 90 for Rs.1.51 Lacs. The return was processed by CPC u/s 143(1) on 05.07.2022 wherein this credit was denied since the assessee did not file applicable Form No.67 to claim the said relief. The assessee filed Form No.67 along with rectification application u/s 154 on 18.07.2022 in respect of her claim. However, CPC again denied the same in an intimation issued u/s 154. Upon further appeal, Ld. CIT(A), relying on the decision of Bangalore Tribunal in the case of Brinda Ramakrishna vs ITO (ITA No.454/Bang/2021 dated 17.11.2021), directed Ld. AO to grant the credit as per Form No.67. Aggrieved, the revenue is in further appeal before us.

3. We find that this issue is squarely covered by the cited decision of Bangalore Tribunal. Recently, 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 aforesaid form in terms of Rule 128 is only directory in nature. The rule is only for the implementation of the provisions of the act and it will always be directory in nature. Respectfully following the same, we dismiss the appeal.