SHASHANK SADASHIV KARKARE,RATNAGIRI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, RATNAGIRI, RATNAGIRI
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal held that filing of Form No. 67 within the due date for filing the return of income is directory, not mandatory. Since Form No. 67 was available with the CPC before processing the return, the denial of credit was unjustified.
What were the facts?
The assessee claimed credit for foreign tax paid by filing Form No. 67 belatedly. The CPC denied this claim as Form No. 67 was not filed within the prescribed time for filing the return of income.
What were the issues?
Whether the belated filing of Form No. 67 bars the assessee from claiming credit for foreign tax paid. Whether the requirement of filing Form No. 67 within the due date for return filing is mandatory or directory.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, PUNE BENCH “B”, PUNE
Before: SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO & SHRI VINAY BHAMORE
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 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.
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.
In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands partly allowed. Order pronounced on this 26th day of April, 2024.
More judgments on Section 90
- Amar Rameshkumar Bhalodia, Rajkot vs The ACIT, Circle-1(1), RajkotITA 641/RJT/2026[2022-23]Status: Disposed15 Oct 2026AY 2022-23
- Fireeye Ireland Limited, Ireland vs Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax…ITITA 1431/DEL/2025[2022-2023]Status: Disposed30 Sept 2026AY 2022-2023
- Archana Gupta, New Delhi vs Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax…ITA 3123/DEL/2026[2022-23]Status: Disposed29 Sept 2026AY 2022-23
- Shishir Dhatwalia, Hamirpur vs Circle 1(1) Jalpaiguri, JalpaiguriITA 2583/KOL/2025[2021-22]Status: Disposed28 Sept 2026AY 2021-22
- Raghava Gupta Valiveti, Bangalore vs Income Tax Officer Ward 5(3)(4), BangaloreITA 2744/BANG/2025[2019-20]Status: Disposed28 Sept 2026AY 2019-20
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- M/S Kotdwar Steel Limited vs. Office Of Hte Deputy CommissionerUttarakhand · 28 Oct 2026
- M/S Kotdwar Steel Limited vs. Office Of The Deputy CommissionerUttarakhand · 28 Oct 2026
- M/S Kotdwar Steel Limited vs. Office Of The Deputy CommissionerUttarakhand · 28 Oct 2026
- M/S Asian Aura vs. Government Of Nct Of Delhi And Ors.Delhi · 27 Oct 2026
- Shining Steel Through Its Proprietor Kartik Gupta vs. Union Of INDIA & Ors.Delhi · 27 Oct 2026