ARIJIT MITRA,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-12, PUNE, PUNE

PDF · subscribers
ITA 211/PUN/2024Status: DisposedITAT Pune30 August 2024AY 2021-22Bench: SHRI R. K. PANDA (Vice President), SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA (Judicial Member)3 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the requirement to file Form 67 before the due date is directory and not mandatory. The assessee had filed Form 67 during rectification proceedings.

What were the facts?

The assessee claimed foreign tax credit for tax withheld in the USA. The Assessing Officer disallowed this credit, citing the non-filing of Form 67 before the due date for filing the return of income.

What were the issues?

Whether the non-filing of Form 67 before the due date for filing the return of income makes the foreign tax credit disallowable, and if the condition is mandatory or directory.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 143(1),Section 154

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, PUNE BENCH “A”, PUNE

Before: SHRI R. K. PANDA & SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA

For Appellant: Shri Sanket M. Joshi
For Respondent: Shri Ramnath P. Murkunde
Hearing: 27.08.2024Pronounced: 30.08.2024

Assessment Year: 2021-22 Arijit Mitra, Vs. DCIT, Circle-12, Pune. Flat No.T-25-1212, Metro Tower, Sadesatranali Road, Amonora Park Town, Hadapsar, Pune- 411028. PAN : ANEPM2834P Appellant Respondent Assessee by : Shri Sanket M. Joshi Revenue by Shri Ramnath P. Murkunde : Date of hearing : 27.08.2024 Date of pronouncement : 30.08.2024 आदेश / ORDER

PER SATBEER SINGH GODARA, JM:

1.

This assessee’s appeal for assessment year 2021-22 arises against the National Faceless Appeal Centre [in short the “NFAC”] Delhi’s Din and Order No. ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2023- 24/1058890068(1), dated 19.12.2023, in proceedings u/s 154 and section 143(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short “the Act”). Heard both the parties at length. Case file perused.

2. The assessee pleads the following impugned grounds in the instant appeal :- “1. The Ld CIT (Appeals) erred in confirming the disallowance of the foreign tax credit towards tax withheld in USA of Rs.8,61,822/- though Ld CIT(Appeals) had admitted the fact that the Ld AO at CPC has disallowed the foreign tax credit without providing specific for disallowing the foreign tax credit reasons in the intimation u/s 143(1) as well as u/s 154 of the Income Tax Act, 1961.

2.

The Ld CIT (Appeals) erred in confirming the disallowance of the foreign tax credit towards tax withheld in USA of Rs.8,61,822/- without appreciating the fact that filing of Form no. 67 as required by Income Tax Rule 128(9) before the due date of filing of return u/s 139(1) is directory and not mandatory. The Ld CIT (Appeals ) erred in not considering the decisions of judicial authorities on the similar issue which were cited and explained by the appellant in the appellate proceedings. The appellant prays before Your Honour to kindly direct the Ld AO to allow the tax credit of tax withheld in USA of Rs.8,61,822/-.

3.

The appellant craves leave to add, alter, delete, and substitute any or all grounds of appeal

at the time of hearing.”

3. Suffice to say, the sole and substantive dispute between the parties is that of the assessee’s entitlement to avail foreign tax credit withheld in USA amounting to Rs.8,61,822/- on the ground that he had failed to file the corresponding prescribed Form 67 under Rule 128(9) before the “due” date of filing of return u/s 139(1) of the Act. The Revenue vehemently submits that such a condition is indeed mandatory in nature and, therefore, the assessee’s instant sole substantive ground deserves to the rejected.

4. We find no merit in the revenue’s technical objection once it is come on record that case law Duraiswamy Kumaraswamy vs.

More judgments on Section 154

All 8,676 judgments and leading authorities on Section 154 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →