ANINDYA SARKAR,KOLKATA vs. A.D.I.T., CPC, BENGALURU, BENGALRU

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C” BENCH KOLKATA BEFORE SHRI SANJAY GARG JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI RAKESH MISHRA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No. 1345/KOL/2024 Assessment Year: 2020-21

Anindya Sarkar, Assistant Director of Income Tax, CPC, Bangaluru 11D1 Loch Tower, Hiland Park, 1925, Chakgaria, Vs Kolkata - 700094 (PAN: AJTPS5051K) (Appellant) (Respondent)

Present for: Appellant by : Shri C.M. Roy, C.A. Respondent by : Shri Subhro Das, Addl. CIT, Sr. DR Date of Hearing : 11.07.2024 Date of Pronouncement : 26.07.2024 O R D E R PER RAKESH MISHRA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER: This appeal filed by the assessee is against the order of the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Kolkata-22, (hereinafter referred to as “the Ld. CIT(A)” passed u/s. 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) for AY 2020-21 dated 17.05.2024 passed against the rectification order u/s. 154 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the “Act”) by the Assistant Director of Income Tax, CPC, Bengaluru, dated 07.06.2022.

“1. That the learned CIT(A) has erred in disallowing the foreign tax credit due to delay in submission of Form 67.

2 ITA No. 1345/Kol/2024 Anindya Sarkar : AY: 2020-21 2. That the learned CIT(A) has failed to appreciate the fact that in case of delayed filing of Form 67 by way of foreign tax credit which is deducted in foreign country would be denied (sic). 3. For that the assessee craves leave to add, alter or withdraw any ground/s of appeal before or at the time of hearing.”

3 ITA No. 1345/Kol/2024 Anindya Sarkar : AY: 2020-21 assessee had vested right under the DTAA for allowance of tax credit. And procedural delay in filing of Form 67 cannot take away the right vested under the sovereign agreement between India and Singapore signed under Section 90 of the Act as double taxation of the same income under two tax jurisdiction amounts to violation of spirit of Section 90 and the consequent DTAA between two countries. Before the Ld. CIT(A), the assessee could not succeed and the appeal was dismissed by mentioning as under:

“On perusal of the intimation u/s 143(1) dated 24.12.2021 and rectification order dated 07.06.2022, it is observed that the claim of tax relief of Rs. 13,28,903/- Under Section 90/90A of the IT Act was disallowed due to non-filing of the form 67 on or before the due date of furnishing the return of income as prescribed u/s 139(1) of the Act. It is pertinent to mention here that the CBDT also through its Notification No. 9 dated 19 September 2017 categorically mandates that for claiming credit of any taxes in a country or territory specified outside India, the assessee shall file Form No. 67 under sub-rule (9) of rule 128 of the Income-tax rules, 1962 before the due date for filing the return of income under section 139(1) the Income-tax Act, 1961 and also mandates that filing of Form No. 67 shall precede the filing of the return. In the instant case, the Form No 67 was not filed along with the return of income. Although a claim of foreign tax credit was made in the return of income and the same was not accompanied by the Form No 67 which is mandated by the law. However, the appellant claimed that on 26.12.2020 he had submitted the Form 67 after receiving communication from the e-Filing Team, Income Tax Department on 25.12.2020. But, during the appellate proceedings, the appellant could not submit the Form no 67 which according to him was originally filed on 26.12.2020. Accordingly, the CPC processed the return of income without allowing the credit for foreign tax deduction. Afterwards, the appellant filed a rectification request on 21.05.2022 and on 07.06.2022, the CPC, Bengaluru passed the rectification order, rejecting the claim as there was no legally valid Form 67 available at that point of time. Later on, as per the submission filed by the appellant, he filed the Form No 67 on 03.07.2022 which is beyond the due date for filing the return of income under section 139(1) the Income-tax Act, 1961 under sub-rule (9) of rule 128 of the Income-tax rules, 1962 and hence, non-est as per law.” 4. Aggrieved with the order of the Ld. CIT(A), the assessee has filed this appeal before the Tribunal.

4 ITA No. 1345/Kol/2024 Anindya Sarkar : AY: 2020-21 provision of the Act and therefore, the credit for foreign tax paid in Singapore should be allowed. The assessee also relied upon the decision in the case of Mahua Bagchi Vs. ACIT, Circle 61, Kolkata, ITA No. 3/Kol/2023, AY 2017-18, dated 19.07.2023 as also the decision in the case of Deepak Shimoga Padmaraju Vs. Assistant Director of Income Tax, ITO, CPC, Bangalore, AY 2021-22, ITA No. 239/Bang/2024, dated 17.04.2024.

“5. After hearing rival contentions and perusing the material on record, we find that the assessee served abroad and some foreign tax to the tune of Rs. 17,72,470/- was deducted in United Kingdom under DTAA between India and UK and provision of Section 90(2) of the Act. We also note that Rule 128 sub-Rule 9 provides that Form-67 should be filed on or before the due date of filing the return of income. However, we note that nowhere it is stated that in case of delayed filing of Form-67 by way of foreign tax credit which is deducted from the assessee in foreign country i.e U.K. would be denied. Accordingly, we are of the considered view that the assessee is entitled to get this foreign tax credit of Rs. 17,72,470/- u/s 90 of the Act. We also note that the claim in respect of foreign tax was allowed in the order passed u/s 143(1) of the dated 28.03.2019 and was withdrawn by the AO by passing order u/s 154 of the Act when the assessee filed form 67 before the AO. In our opinion the credit in respect of foreign tax cannot be denied to the assessee for the technicality of not filing the form 67 within the due date of return u/s 139(1) of the Act. The case of the assessee finds

5 ITA No. 1345/Kol/2024 Anindya Sarkar : AY: 2020-21 support from the decision of Coordinate Benches in the case of Atanu Mukherjee Vs. ITO in ITA No. 439/KOL/2022 for AY 2020-21 order dated 20.12.2022 and Sobhan Lal Gangopadhyay Vs. ADIT in ITA No. 782/KOL/2022 for AY 2020-21 order dated 09.05.2023. 6. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed.” 8. Further, in the case of Deepak Shimoga Padmaraju Vs. Assistant Director of Income Tax (supra), relying upon the case of Brinda Rama Krishna in ITA No. 454/Bang/2021 for AY 2018-19, order dated 17.11.2021 it has been held that Rule 128(9) of the Rules does not provide for disallowance of FTC in case of delay in filing Form No. 67. The relevant extract of the aforesaid order read as under:

“(ii) filing of Form No.67 is not mandatory but a directory requirement and (iii) DTAA overrides the provisions of the Act and the Rules cannot be contrary to the Act. Therefore, nonfurnishing of Form No.67 before the due date u/s 139(1) of the Act is not fatal to the claim for FTC. The findings of this Tribunal are reproduced below: " 2. The Assessee is an individual and during the previous year relevant to AY 2018- 19 an ordinary resident in India. The Assessee worked with Ernst & Young Australia from 20.11.2017 till 16.05.2019. Since her global income was taxable in India, the Assessee offered to tax salary income earned for services rendered in Australia for the period from December 2017 to March 2018 to tax in India. The Assessee claimed foreign tax credit ("FTC") for taxes paid in Australia. 3. There is no dispute that the Assessee is entitled to claim FTC. Rule 128 of the Income Tax Rules, 1962 (Rules) provides for giving FTC and reads thus: "Foreign Tax Credit. 128. (1) An assessee, being a resident shall be allowed a credit for the amount of any foreign tax paid by him in a country or specified territory outside India, by way of deduction or otherwise, in the year in which the income corresponding to such tax has been offered to tax or assessed to tax in India, in the manner and to the extent as specified in this rule: Provided that in a case where income on which foreign tax has been paid or deducted, is offered to tax in more than one year, credit of foreign tax shall be allowed across those years in the same proportion in which the income is offered to tax or assessed to tax in India." One of the requirements of Rule 128 for claiming FTC is provided by Rule 128 (8) & (9) of the Rules and the same reads thus: "(8) Credit of any foreign tax shall be allowed on furnishing the following documents by the assessee, namely:— (i) a statement of income from the country or specified territory outside India offered for tax for the previous year and of foreign tax deducted or paid on such income in Form No.67 and verified in the manner specified therein; (ii) certificate or statement specifying the nature of income and the amount of tax deducted therefrom or paid by the assessee,— (a) from the tax authority of the country or the specified territory outside India; or (b) from the person responsible for deduction of such tax; or (c) signed by

6 ITA No. 1345/Kol/2024 Anindya Sarkar : AY: 2020-21 the assessee: Provided that the statement furnished by the assessee in clause (c) shall be valid if it is accompanied by,— (A) an acknowledgement of online payment or bank counter foil or challan for payment of tax where the payment has been made by the assessee; (B) proof of deduction where the tax has been deducted. (9) The statement in Form No.67 referred to in clause (i) of sub-rule (8) and the certificate or the statement referred to in clause (ii) of sub-rule (8) shall be furnished on or before the due date specified for furnishing the return of income under subsection (1) of section 139, in the manner specified for furnishing such return of income." 4. The Assessee claimed FTC of Rs. 4,73,779/- u/s. 90 of the Act read with Article 24 of India Australia tax treaty ("DTAA") in a revised return of income filed on 31.8.2018. The Assessee had not filed the Form 67 before filing the return of income. On realising the same, the Assessee filed Form 67 in support of claim of foreign tax credit on 18.04.2020. The revised return of income was processed by Centralized Processing Centre (CPC) electronically and intimation u/s 143(1) of the Act on 28.05.2020 was passed disallowing the claim of FTC. 5. The Assessee filed a rectification application before the AO on 15.06.2020 & 25.02.2021 and submitted that credit for FTC as claimed in the return should be given. In the rectification order dated 10.03.2021, the AO upheld the action on the ground that the Assessee has failed to furnish Form 67 on or before the due date of furnishing the return of income as prescribed u/s 139(1) of the Act which is mandatory according to Rule 128(9) of the Rules. 6. On appeal by the Assessee, the CIT(A) vide Order dated 03.09.2021 confirmed the Order of AO. The CIT(A) held that the Assessee has not filed Form 67 before the time allowed under section 139(5) of the Act, and therefore Form 67 is nonest in law. The CIT(A) also held that provisions of Rule 128 are mandatory in nature. The CIT(A)rejected the contention of the Assessee that filing of Form 67 is a procedural requirement and noncompliance thereof does not disentitle the Assessee of the FTC. 16. I have given a careful consideration to the rival submissions. I agree with the contentions put forth by the learned counsel for the Assessee and hold that (i) Rule 128(9) of the Rules does not provide for disallowance of FTC in case of delay in filing Form No.67; (ii) filing of Form No.67 is not mandatory but a directory requirement and (iii) DTAA overrides the provisions of the Act and the Rules cannot be contrary to the Act. I am of the view that the issue was not debatable and there was only one view possible on the issue which is the view set out above. I am also of the view that the issue in the proceedings u/s.154 of the Act, even if it involves long drawn process of reasoning, the answer to the question can be only one and in such circumstances, proceedings u/s.154 of the Act, can be resorted to. Even otherwise the ground on which the revenue authorities rejected the Assessee's application u/s.154 of the Act was not on the ground that the issue was debatable but on merits. I therefore do not agree with the submission of the learned DR in this regard.”

7 ITA No. 1345/Kol/2024 Anindya Sarkar : AY: 2020-21 9. Further, similar issue arose in the case of Sukhdev Sen Vs. ACIT, Circle -1, Kolkata (ITA No. 78/Kol/2014, dated 26.03.2024). The relevant extract of the aforesaid order is as under:

“7. Before proceeding further, we would like to reproduce rule 128 of the Income-tax Rules, 1962 (the Rules) which relates with foreign tax credit as under: "Foreign Tax Credit. 128 (1) An assessee, being a resident shall be allowed credit for the amount of any foreign tax paid by him in a country or specified territory outside India, by way of deduction or otherwise, in the year in which the income corresponding to such lax has been offered to tax or assessed to tax in India, in the manner and to the extent as specified in this rule: Provided that in a case where income on which foreign tax has been paid or deducted, is offered to tax in more than one year, credit of foreign tax shall be allowed across those years in the same proportion in which the income is offered to tax or assessed to tax in India" 8. We further note that section 90 of the Act provides that Government of India can enter into Agreement with other countries for granting relief in respect of income on which taxes are paid in country outside India and such income is also taxable in India. Article 25 of DTAA between India and USA provides for credit for foreign taxes. Article 25(2)(a) is relevant in the present context. Same is extracted below: "Where a resident of India derives income which, in accordance with the provisions of this Convention, may be taxed in the United States, India shall allow as a deduction from the tax on the income of that resident an amount equal to the income tax paid in the United States, whether directly or by deduction. Such deduction shall not, however, exceed that part of the income-tax (as computed before the deduction is given) which is attributable to the income which may be taxed in the United States" 9. Thus, Section 90 of the Act read with Article 25(2)(a) of the DTAA provides that tax paid in USA shall be allowed as a credit against the tax payable in India but limited to the proportion of Indian tax Neither section 90 nor the DTAA provides that FTC shall be disallowed for non- compliance with any procedural requirement. Foreign Tax Credit is an assesser's vested right as per Article 25[2](a) of the DNA road wat Section 90 and same cannot be disallowed for non-compliance with procedural requirement th at is prescribed in the rules. 10. Further, we would like to mention that rule 128(9) provides that Form No. 67 should be filed on or before the due date of filing the

8 ITA No. 1345/Kol/2024 Anindya Sarkar : AY: 2020-21 return of income as prescribed u/s 139(1) of the Act. However, the rule nowhere provides that if the said Form No. 67 is not filed within the required time frame, the relief as sought by the assessee u/s 90 of the Act would be denied. It is therefore evident that if the intention of the legislature were to deny the foreign tax credit, either the Act or the rules would have specifically provided that the foreign tax credit would be disallowed if the assessee does not file Form No. 67 within the due date prescribed under section 139(1) of the Act. We further note that Filing of Form No. 67 is a procedural/directory requirement and is not a mandatory requirement and violation of procedural norm does not extinguish the substantive right of claiming the credit of FTC. In support of the claim, the assessee has relied upon several decisions including the following decision: i. CIT vs. G.M. Knitting Industries (P) Ltd. 71 Tuxmann.com 35(SC) ii. Brinda Ramakrishna us. IPO 193 ITD 840 (Bang) iii. 42 Hertz Software India Pvt. Ltd vs Asst. CIT. Ita No. 29. Hang/2001 iv. Duraiswamy Kumaraswamy vs. PCIT, W.P No.5834 of 2022 11. Hon'ble Supreme Court, in the case of Mangalore Chemicals & Fertilizers Ltd. v. Deputy Commissioner, [1992 Supp (1) Supreme Court Cases 21) in respect of compliance with the procedural requirements have observed that: "The mere fact that it is statutory does not matter one way of that other. There are conditions and conditions. Some may be substantive, mandatory and based on considerations of policy and some others may merely belong to the area of procedure. It will be erroneous to attach equal importance to the non- observance of all conditions irrespective of the purposes they were intended to serve.” 12. Further, in the case of Engineering Analysis Centre of Excellence Private Limited vs the Commissioner of Income-tax & Anr. Civil Appeal Nos. 8733-8734 of 2018 & Ors. Hon'ble Supreme Court have held as under that the provisions of DIAA shall override the provisions of the Income-tax Act unless they are more beneficial to the assessee: 165. The conclusions in the aforestated paragraph have no direct relevance to the facts at hand as the effect of section 902) of the Income Tax Act wat explanation 4 thereof, is to treat the DTAA provisions as the low that must be followed by Indian courts, notwithstanding what may be contained in the Income Tax Act to the contrary, unless more beneficial to the assessee. 13. We have gone through the decisions of the coordinate Benches and concur with their findings in this regard that filing of Form No. 67 is directory and not mandatory and the credit for foreign taxes paid cannot be denied merely on the delay in filing the Form No. 67. In the case of M/s 42 Hertz Software India Pvt Ltd. Vs the Assistant

9 ITA No. 1345/Kol/2024 Anindya Sarkar : AY: 2020-21 Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 3 (1)(1), Bangalore, ITA No. 29/Bang/2021 ITAT. BANGALORE it is held that: 6. There is no dispute that the Assessee is entitled to claim FTU On perusal of provisions of Rule 128 (8) & (9), it is clear that, one of the requirements of Rule 128 for claiming FTC is that Form 67 is to be submitted by assessee before filing of the returns. In our view, this requirement cannot be treated as mandatory, rather it is directory in nature. This is because, Rule 128(9) does not provide for disallowance of FTC in case of delay in filing Form No 67 This view is fortified by the decision of coordinate bench of this Tribunal in case of Ms. Brindu Kumar Krishna us. ITO in ITA no. 454/ Bang/2021 by order dated 17/11/2021. 7. It's a trite law that DTAA overrides the provisions of the Act and the Rules, as held by various High Courts, which has also been approved by Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Engineering Analysis Centre of Excellence (P) Ltd reported im (2021) 432 ITR 471. 8. We accordingly, hold that FTC cannot be denied to the assessee. Assessee is directed to file the relevant details/evidences in support of its claim. We thus remand this issue back to the Ld.AO to consider the claim of assessee in accordance with law, based on the verification carried out in respect of the supporting documents filed by assessee. 14. In Vikash Daga Vs ACIT Circle-3 (1) Gurgaon ITA No.2536/Del/2022, the ITAT DELHI BENCH 'H', NEW DELHI vide order dated 14/06/2023 have held that: 8 We have given a thoughtful consideration to the orders of the authorities below. The undisputed fact is that the assessee holds a foreign tax credit certificate for Rs. 1887114/ - In our considered opinion filing of form 67 is a procedural / directory requirement and is not a mandatory requirement Therefore, violation of procedural norms does not extinguish the substantive right of claiming the credit of FTC We accordingly direct the AO to allow the credit of FTC and hold that rule 128(9) of the Rules 3 does not provide for disallowance FTC in case of delay filing of form 67 is not mandatory het directory requirement and DTAA overrides the provisions of the Act and the Rules cannot be contrary to the Act. 9. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed. 15. Similarly, in the case of Ashish Agrawal Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-12(1), Hyderabad ITA No. 337/Hyd/2023 ITAT HYDERABAD BENCHES "B", have held vide order dated 26/09/2023 that: 11. As far as the issue of FTC is concerned, learned AR placed reliance on the decision in the case of Ms. Brinda Rama Krishna (supra) in the case of Ms Brinda Rama Krishna (supra), the Bench considered the issue in the light of the provisions of

10 ITA No. 1345/Kol/2024 Anindya Sarkar : AY: 2020-21 DTAA, section 295(1) of the Act, the decisions of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Mangalore Chemicals & Fertilizers Ltd. Vs. Deputy Commissioner (1992 Supp (1) SCC 21), Sambhaji Vs. Gangabai (2008) 17 SCC 117 and a lot many decisions of the Hon'ble Apex Court including the case m Union of India Vs. Azadi Bachao Andolan (2003) 263 ITR 706 (SC) etc. and reached a conclusion that since Rule 128(9) of the Rules does not provide for disallowance of FTC in the case of delay in filing Form 67 and such filing within the time allowed for filing the return of income under section 139(1) of the Act is only directory, since DTAA over rides the Act, and the Rules cannot be contrary to the Act. 12. We find from Article 25(2)(a) of the DTAA that where a resident of India derives income which, in accordance with the provision of the convention, may be taxed in the United States, India shall allow as a deduction from the tax on the income of the resident an amount equal to the income tax paid in the United States, whether directly or by deduction in view of this provision over riding the provisions of the Act, according to us, Rule 128(9) of the Rules has to be read down in conformity thereof Rule 128(9) of the Rules cannot be read in isolation. Rules must be read in the context of the Act and the DTAA impacting the rights, liabilities and disabilities of the parties. 13. In the case of Purushothama Reddy Vankıreddy (supra) also the Co-ordinate Bench of the Tribunal, in the similar circumstances, allowed the appeal of assessee for FTC claim. Respectfully following the same, we are of the considered Page 6 of 8 ITA No. 337/Hyd/2023 opinion that the decisions relied upon by the assessee are applicable to the facts of the case and the grounds raised by the assessee are accordingly allowed. 14. In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed.” 16. We have also gone through the decision of the Hon'ble Madras High Court in the case of Duraiswamy Kumaraswamy us. PCIT (supra) and found that the facts are identical to the facts of the case of the assessee and the decision is squarely applicable to the facts of the case of the assessee. In that case, the petitioner was resident of India and had filed Indian ITR and claimed benefit of FTC u/s 90/91 of the Act row. Article 24 of the India-Kenya DTAA. During the year, he had income of both Kenya and India but while filing the Indian ITR for the impugned assessment year 2019 -20, the Form No. 67 prescribed in rule 128 of the rules for claiming FTC was inadvertently not uploaded along with the ITK which was uploaded on 02.02.2021 The return was processed on 26.03.2021, however, the credit of FTC was not given effect to and the request made to the CPC to give effect to the FTC was not accepted and intimation along with notices of demand was received. The assessee also could not succeed with the rectification application filed and approached the CIT u/s 264 of the Act and at the same time filed a writ petition before the Hon'ble Madras High Court. It was stated by the respondent- department that rule 128 is mandatory and cannot be

11 ITA No. 1345/Kol/2024 Anindya Sarkar : AY: 2020-21 considered as directory in nature. The petitioner referred to the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. G.M. Knitting Industries (P) Ltd. Civil Appeal Nos. 10782 of 2013 and 4048 of 2014 dated 24.06.2015 The Hon'ble High Court allowe d the Writ Petition in favour of the assessee by holding as under. “11. The law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Commissioner of Income Tax, Maharashtra v. G.M.Knitting Industries (P) Limited in Civil Appeal Nos. 10782 of 2013 and 4048 of 2014 dated 24.06.2015, which was referred above, would be squarely applicable to the present case. In the present case, the returns were filed without FIC, however the same was filed before passing of the final assessment order. The filing of FTC in terms of the 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 This is what the Hon'ble Supreme Court had held in the above cases when the returns were filed without furnishing Form 3AA and the same can be filed the subsequent to the passing of assessment order. W P. No 5834 of 2022. 12 Further, in the present case, the intimation under Section 143(1) was issued on 26.03.2021, but the FTC was filed on 02.02.2021. Thus, the respondent is supposed to have provided the due credit to the FTC of the petitioner. However, the PTC was rejected by the respondent, which is not proper and the same is not in accordance with law. Therefore, the impugned order is liable to be set aside. 13. Accordingly the impugned order dated 25.01.2022 is set aside. While setting aside the impugned order, this Court remits the matter back to the respondent to make reassessment by taking into consideration of the FTC filed by the petitioner on 02.02.2021. The respondent is directed to give due credit to the Kenya income of the petitioner and pass the final assessment order. Further, it is made clear that the impugned order is set wade only to the extent of disallowing of FTC clam made by the petitioner und hence, the first respondent is directed to consider only on the aspect of rejection of FTC clam within a period of 8 weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order" 17. Respectfully following the order of the Hon'ble Madras High Court in the case of Duraiswamy Kumaraswamy vs. PCIT (supra) and concurring with the views held by the coordinate Benches of the Tribunal (supra), we hold that merely because the assessee could n ot file Form No. 67 within the prescribed time limit as per the provisions of rule 128(9) of the Income-tax rules, 1962, as it stood during the year under consideration, will not preclude the assessee from claiming the benefit of the foreign tax credit in respect of taxes paid outside India. Therefore, the claim of the assessee is allowed and the Assessing Officer is directed to give benefit of foreign tax credit in respect of tax paid outside India by the assessee in accordance with law and the DTAA between India and the USA. Accordingly, grounds no. 2,3,4 of the appeal are allowed.”

12 ITA No. 1345/Kol/2024 Anindya Sarkar : AY: 2020-21 10. The relevant extract of Article 25 of India Singapore Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement (DTAA) is as under:

“1. The laws in force in either of the Contracting States shall continue to govern the taxation of income in the respective Contracting States except where express provision to the contrary is made in this Agreement.

13 ITA No. 1345/Kol/2024 Anindya Sarkar : AY: 2020-21 Order pronounced in the open court on 26th July, 2024.

Sd/- Sd/- (Sanjay Garg) (Rakesh Mishra) Judicial Member Accountant Member

Dated: 26th July, 2024 AK, P.S.

14 ITA No. 1345/Kol/2024 Anindya Sarkar : AY: 2020-21 Copy to: 1. The Appellant: 2. The Respondent. 3. CIT(A) 4. The CIT, 5. DR, ITAT, Kolkata Bench, Kolkata //True Copy// By Order

Assistant Registrar ITAT, Kolkata Benches, Kolkata