2022 (7) TMI 1087 - AT - Income Tax

Foreign Tax Credit (FTC) under Article 24(2) of the India-UK DTAA read with Section 90 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (the Act), while computing the income of the appellant - HELD THAT - We find that the assessee has filed original return of income which has been ignored by the Central processing centre, Bangalore as well as the National faceless appeal Centre. Even before the National faceless appeal Centre the assessee made a detailed written submission wherein in paragraph number 5 the complete facts are mentioned which is also been reproduced by the National faceless assessment centre but did not consider that assessee has also filed original return of income. As the assessee has filed original return of income before the due date of filing of the return and form number 67 was also filed prior to the due date of filing of the return, the learned AO Central processing centre as well as the learned CIT A has grossly erred in holding that assessee has not filed return of income and form number 67 before the due date of filing of the return. These are on record but lower authorities have ignored it for the reasons best known to them. Further before the National faceless appeal Centre, the learned CIT (A) the assessee submitted the complete facts along with the statement and the acknowledgement number of original return filed, despite this, the learned CIT appeal dismissed the appeal of the assessee by noting wrong facts and giving wrong reasons. Therefore we reverse the orders of the lower authority and direct the learned assessing officer to grant credit of foreign tax credit to the assessee as form number 67 has been filed by the assessee on or before the due date prescribed for filing of the return of income. In the result ground number 1 2 of the appeal are allowed. Depreciation while processing the tax return - Disallowance of claim as assessee mentioned it in serial number 12 (ii) of the schedule BP that relates to the computation of business profit but the depreciation is with respect to the assets of an undertaking engaged in generation and generation and distribution of the power - HELD THAT - CIT A held that in a filing of the return of income the onus is on the assessee to correctly fill up the return of income and make appropriate claims in the correct return. If incorrect claims are made in the return of income there liable to be rejected. Accordingly the action of the learned assessing officer is upheld. We find that assessee has made an incorrect claim in the return of income by filling up the incorrect column, the Central processing centre found that assessee is not engaged in the business of power generation et cetera and therefore is not entitled to depreciation and therefore disallowed. We find that the learned CIT A has given a correct reason that in e filing of the return it is the duty of the assessee to put the correct amount in the correct column. Thus ground number 3 of the appeal is dismissed. Charging of interest u/s 234A - HELD THAT - We find that assessee has filed his return of income in time and therefore the interest charged u/s 234A deserves to be deleted. Hence, we delete the same. Ground number 4 of the appeal is allowed. Charging of interest u/s 234B and 234C of the act, which is consequential in nature, and therefore the learned assessing officer is directed to compute the same in accordance with the law. Charging of fees u/s 234F - We find that as the assessee has filed his return of income within the due date prescribed for the impugned assessment year, the above fee is not leviable. Hence, we delete the same.

Summary

Issues:
1. Disallowance of Foreign Tax Credit (FTC) under Article 24(2) of India-UK DTAA
2. Disregarding documentary evidence for FTC claim
3. Disallowance of depreciation amount
4. Imposition of interest under sections 234A, 234B, and 234C
5. Imposition of fee under section 234F

Issue 1: Disallowance of Foreign Tax Credit (FTC) under Article 24(2) of India-UK DTAA:
The assessee claimed FTC under Article 24(2) of the DTAA, but the NFAC denied it as the form was filed after the due date. The CIT (A) upheld this denial, citing Rule 128 of the Income Tax Rules. However, the ITAT found that the original return was filed on time, along with Form 67 for FTC. The lower authorities erred in not considering this, leading to the reversal of the decision and directing the AO to grant the FTC.

Issue 2: Disregarding documentary evidence for FTC claim:
The assessee submitted documentary evidence for the FTC claim, including Form 67, but it was disregarded during processing. The ITAT observed that the original return was filed with all necessary documents, which were ignored by the authorities. The ITAT reversed this decision and directed the AO to grant the FTC as per the original submission.

Issue 3: Disallowance of depreciation amount:
The disallowance of depreciation amounting to INR 1,492 was challenged by the assessee. The CIT (A) upheld this disallowance, stating that incorrect claims should be rejected. The ITAT agreed with this decision, noting that the incorrect claim was made in the return, leading to the dismissal of this ground of appeal.

Issue 4: Imposition of interest under sections 234A, 234B, and 234C:
Interest under sections 234A, 234B, and 234C was imposed due to the delay in filing the return. The ITAT found that since the return was filed on time, the interest under section 234A was deleted. The computation of interest under sections 234B and 234C was directed to be done in accordance with the law.

Issue 5: Imposition of fee under section 234F:
A fee of INR 5,000 under section 234F was imposed, which the ITAT found unjustified as the return was filed within the due date. Therefore, the ITAT deleted this fee. Overall, the appeal by the assessee was partly allowed, with adjustments made in favor of the assessee on various grounds.

This detailed analysis covers the key issues raised in the judgment, outlining the arguments, decisions, and rationale provided by the ITAT in each case.