SANDEEP AGGARWAL,GURGAON vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-58(1), NEW DELHI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 2004/DEL/2023Status: DisposedITAT Delhi07 December 2023AY 2019-20Bench: SHRI SAKTIJIT DEY (Vice President), SHRI M. BALAGANESH (Accountant Member)4 pages

In favour of the assessee: the assessee's appeal was allowed. From the AI summary of this appeal.

AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the requirement to furnish Form 67 is directory, not mandatory, and non-furnishing does not automatically lead to denial of FTC. The Assessing Officer is directed to allow the FTC claim.

What were the facts?

The assessee claimed Foreign Tax Credit (FTC) in their returns but failed to furnish Form 67 on time. The FTC claims were disallowed by the CPC, and subsequent rectification and appeal applications were rejected.

What were the issues?

Whether the disallowance of Foreign Tax Credit for delayed furnishing of Form 67 is justified, considering Form 67 is directory.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 90,Section 91,Section 143(1),Section 154

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH: ‘G’ NEW DELHI

Before: SHRI SAKTIJIT DEY, VICE- & SHRI M. BALAGANESH

Hearing: 29.11.2023Pronounced: 07.12.2023

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.

2.

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

3.

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.

4.

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

5.

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.

6.

In the result, appeals are allowed.

More judgments on Section 90

All 1,075 judgments and leading authorities on Section 90 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →