ITAT Jaipur Judgments — February 2024

The Tribunal held that Rule 128(9) is a procedural provision and not mandatory. The non-filing of Form 67 within the due date does not extinguish the substantive right to claim FTC, especially when the DTAA provisions override the Act. Therefore, the assessee is entitled to the FTC claim.

The Tribunal held that the assessee had a reasonable cause for not obtaining the audit report, as the income was offered under the head 'capital gains' and the AO had reclassified the transaction as business income. Therefore, the penalty was deleted.

The Tribunal noted that the assessee was deprived of contesting the case before lower authorities due to ex-parte orders. The assessee was granted one more opportunity to contest the case before the AO.

The Tribunal restored the matter to the file of the AO, granting the assessee one more opportunity to contest the case. This was done to ensure natural justice, as the assessee claimed to have been deprived of a proper hearing before the lower authorities.

The Tribunal condoned the delay of 17 days in filing the appeal, acknowledging the reasons provided by the assessee. However, it noted the assessee's non-compliance and lethargy before the lower authorities, which resulted in the ex-parte order by the CIT(A). The appeal is restored to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision after providing one more opportunity for hearing.

The Tribunal restored the appeal to the file of the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication, noting that the CIT(A) had passed an ex-parte order. A cost of Rs. 2,000/- was imposed on the assessee for its lethargic approach.