9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2025 (2) TMI 828 - AT - Income TaxDenial of Foreign Tax Credit claimed under article 25(2)(a) of the India USA DTAA r.w.s. 90 of the I.T. Act - late filing of Form 67 - assessee filed revised return and claimed Foreign Tax Credit and also filed Form 67 - HELD THAT - Identical issue came up in the case of Neha Kapoor 2023 (9) TMI 31 - ITAT DELHI wherein the Tribunal directed the Assessing Officer to allow credit of Foreign Tax Credit as held Rule 128(9) of the Rules does not provide for disallowance of FTC in case of delay in filing Form No.67; (ii) filing of Form No.67 is not mandatory but a directory requirement and (iii) DTAA overrides the provisions of the Act and the Rules cannot be contrary to the Act. Thus we hereby direct the AO to allow the impugned credit of FTC to the assessee. Decided in favour of assessee.
The appeal in this case concerns the denial of Foreign Tax Credit (FTC) to the assessee under the India USA Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement (DTAA) for the assessment year 2020-21 due to the late filing of Form 67. The key issues presented and considered by the Appellate Tribunal are as follows:1. Whether the delay in filing Form 67 should deprive the appellant of their substantive right to claim FTC.2. Whether the denial of FTC without affording a reasonable opportunity of being heard violates the principles of natural justice.3. Whether the failure to consider material evidence and judicial interpretation of facts renders the disallowance of FTC arbitrary and unwarranted.4. Whether the denial of FTC based solely on the procedural lapse of delayed filing of Form 67 is contrary to established principles of law and equity.The Tribunal analyzed the relevant legal framework, precedents, and evidence to reach its conclusions. The Court observed that the claim for FTC was denied due to the belated filing of Form 67 after the extended due date for filing the return of income under section 139(1) of the Income-tax Act. The assessee filed a revised return and claimed FTC along with Form 67, but the claim was still denied based on the timing of the filing.In support of the assessee's case, the counsel relied on various decisions, including Ms. Brinda Rama Krishna Vs. ITO, Bhaskar Dutta Vs. DCIT, and Nirmala Murli Relwani Vs. ADIT. The Tribunal also referenced a similar case, Neha Kapoor Vs. ITO, where the Tribunal directed the Assessing Officer to allow the credit of FTC to the assessee despite the delay in filing Form 67. The Tribunal emphasized that filing Form 67 is a procedural requirement and not a mandatory one, citing the decision in the case of Ms. Brinda Rama Krishna.Based on the precedents and legal reasoning, the Tribunal concluded that the denial of FTC solely due to the delay in filing Form 67 was incorrect. Following the decisions in similar cases, the Tribunal directed the Assessing Officer to accept Form 67 filed by the assessee and allow Foreign Tax Credit in accordance with the law. As a result, the appeal of the assessee was allowed.In summary, the Tribunal's significant holdings include the determination that the delay in filing Form 67 should not deprive the appellant of their right to claim FTC, and the denial of FTC based solely on procedural lapses is contrary to established legal principles. The Tribunal's decision to allow the appeal and direct the Assessing Officer to accept Form 67 and grant FTC aligns with the legal precedents and principles discussed in the judgment.
|
