Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH: ‘G’ NEW DELHI
Before: SHRI SAKTIJIT DEY, VICE- & SHRI M. BALAGANESH
ORDER PER SAKTIJIT DEY, VICE-PRESIDENT
Captioned appeals by the assessee arise out of two separate orders, both dated 27.05.2023, passed by National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC) pertaining to assessment years 2018-19 and 2019-20.
The solitary issue in dispute in both the appeals relates to disallowance of Foreign Tax Credit (FTC) for non- furnishing/delayed furnishing of Form No. 67. & 2005/Del/2023 AYs: 2019-20 & 2018-19
Briefly the facts are, in the return of income filed for the impugned assessment years, the assessee had claimed FTC.
However, Form No. 67 as provided for claiming FTC relief under section 90/91 of the Act read with Rule 128(1) of the Income Tax Rules, 1962 could not be uploaded by the assessee.
Subsequently, the assessee uploaded From No. 67. However, prior to that the return of income filed by the assessee was processed under section 143(1) of the Act by the Central Processing Centre (CPC) and assessee’s claims of FTC were declined due to non- furnishing of Form 67. Thereafter, the assessee filed applications under section 154 of the Act seeking rectification of mistake.
However, such applications were also rejected. Against the orders of rejection passed under section 154 of the Act, the assessee preferred appeals before learned first appeal authority. However, learned first appellate authority dismissed the appeals.
We have considered rival submissions and perused the materials on record. The issue is no more res integra in view of plethora of decisions rendered by different Benches of the Tribunal. In case of Ms. Brinda Rama Krishna Vs. ITO, order dated 17.11.2021, the Coordinate Bench has held that the provisions requiring furnishing of Form 67 are 2 | P a g e & 2005/Del/2023 AYs: 2019-20 & 2018-19 directory and not mandatory. The Bench has further held that there is nothing in Rule 128 to suggest that in case of non- furnishing of Form 67, claim of FTC has to be denied. Following decisions are in similar lines:
i. Sonia Sharma Vs. ITO, dated 27.04.2023 ii. Sh. Sanjeev Aggarwal Vs. DCIT, ITA No. 71/JP/2023, dated 10.05.2023 iii. Rohan Hattangadi Vs. CIT(A), ITA No.1896/Mum/2022, dated 02.12.2022
Though, we are conscious of a contrary decision of Coordinate Bench in case of Muralikrishna Vaddi vs ACIT, order dated 14.06.2022 for AY 2018-19, however, we are disinclined to rely upon such decision as it has not taken note of the earlier decision of the Tribunal in case of Ms. Brinda Ram Krishna (supra). Thus, in view of the aforesaid, we direct the Assessing Officer to allow assessee’s claim of FTC in both the assessment years under dispute.
In the result, appeals are allowed.