SHASHANK SADASHIV KARKARE,RATNAGIRI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, RATNAGIRI, RATNAGIRI
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, PUNE BENCH “B”, PUNE
Before: SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO & SHRI VINAY BHAMORE
PER INTURI RAMA RAO, AM:
This is an appeal filed by the assessee directed against the order of
National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (NFAC) dated 25.01.2024 for
the assessment year 2020-21.
Briefly, the facts of the case are that the appellant is an individual
(Resident) deriving income under the head “salary” from M/s. John
Deere India Private Limited. During the year under consideration, the
appellant had salary income from USA as well as India. Return of
Income for the assessment year 2020-21 was filed on 26.03.2021
ITA No.204/PUN/2024
disclosing total income of Rs.60,00,500/- after claiming credit for
foreign tax paid of Rs.5,63,516/- u/s.90/90A of the Act. However, the
Form No.67 was filed by the appellant on 26.03.2021. The CPC,
Bangalore, vide Intimation dated 06.08.2021 denied the claim for credit
of TDS, as Form No.67 was not filed within prescribed time.
Being aggrieved by the above Intimation, an appeal was filed
before the NFAC, who vide impugned order had confirmed the action of
the CPC, Bangalore denying the claim of credit for foreign tax paid, as
the Form No.67 was filed belatedly beyond the due date for filing of the
return of income.
Being aggrieved, the appellant is in appeal before us in the present
appeal.
It is submitted that filing of Form No.67 within the due date for
filing of the return of income is not mandatory, but it is mere a directory
under the provisions of the Income Tax Rules, 1962. He further
submitted that as on date of processing the return of income, a Form
No.67 was uploaded, which the CPC, Bangalore had failed to take into
consideration. Thus, he submitted that Intimation may be amended. He
further submitted that a direction be issued to the CPC, Bangalore to
give credit for foreign tax paid.
ITA No.204/PUN/2024
On the other hand, ld. Sr. DR submits that CPC, Bangalore was
justified in denying the credit for foreign tax paid, as the assessee had
not filed Form No.67 as per amended provisions of the I. T. Rules.
We heard the rival submissions and perused the material on
record. The issue in the present appeal is that whether or not the CPC,
Bangalore is justified in denying the credit for foreign tax paid for the
reason that the Form No.67 was not filed within the due date for filing of
the return of income as specified under the provisions of section 139(1)
of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘the Act’). Admittedly, in the present
case, Form No.67 was not filed within the due date for filing of the
return of income under the provisions of section 139(1), but Form No.67
was filed on 26.03.2021. The CPC, Bangalore had processed the return
of income on 06.08.2021 which means that Form No.67 was very much
available with the CPC, Bangalore. Therefore, the CPC, Bangalore
cannot deny the claim for credit for foreign tax paid merely because
Form No.67 was not filed within the due date specified for filing the
return of income under the provisions of section 139(1) of the Act, as it
is merely a directory. Therefore, we direct the CPC, Bangalore to
amend the Intimation u/s 143(1) of the Act for taking into consideration
the Form No.67 filed by the appellant. Accordingly, the ground of
appeal filed by the assessee stands partly allowed.
ITA No.204/PUN/2024
In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands partly allowed. Order pronounced on this 26th day of April, 2024.
Sd/- Sd/- (VINAY BHAMORE) (INTURI RAMA RAO) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER
पुणे / Pune; �दनांक / Dated : 26th April, 2024 Satish
आदेश क� �ितिलिप अ�ेिषत / Copy of the Order forwarded to : अपीलाथ� / The Appellant. 1. ��यथ� / The Respondent. 2. 3. The Pr.CIT concerned 4. िवभागीय �ितिनिध, आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, “B” ब�च, पुणे / DR, ITAT, “B” Bench, Pune. गाड� फ़ाइल / Guard File. 5. आदेशानुसार / BY ORDER, // True Copy // Senior Private Secretary आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, पुणे / ITAT, Pune
