9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (2) TMI 752X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Act, can be resorted to. Even otherwise the ground on which the revenue authorities rejected the Assessee s application u/s.154 of the Act was not on the ground that the issue was debatable but on merits. therefore do not agree with the submission of the learned DR in this regard. Assessee appeal allowed. - ITA. No. 454/Bang/2021 - - - Dated:- 17-11-2021 - Shri N.V. Vasudevan, Vice-President For the Assessee : Shri Narendra Kumar Jain, Advocate For the Revenue : Shri Ganesh R Ghale, Standing Counsel ORDER PER N.V. VASUDEVAN, VICE-PRESIDENT This is an appeal by the assessee against the order dated 03.09.2021 of the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi relating to Assessment Year 2018-19. 2. The Assesseee is an individual and during the previous year relevant to AY 2018-19 an ordinary resident in India. The Assesseee worked with Ernst Young Australia from 20.11.2017 till 16.05.2019. Since her global income was taxable in India, the Assessee offered to tax salary income earned for services rendered in Australia for the period from December 2017 to March 2018 to tax in India. The Assessee claimed foreign tax credit ( FTC ) for taxes paid in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... read with Article 24 of India Australia tax treaty ( DTAA ) in a revised return of income filed on 31.8.2018. The Assessee had not filed the Form 67 before filing the return of income. On realising the same, the Assessee filed Form 67 in support of claim of foreign tax credit on 18.04.2020. The revised return of income was processed by Centralized Processing Centre (CPC) electronically and intimation u/s 143(1) of the Act on 28.05.2020 was passed disallowing the claim of FTC. 5. The Assessee filed a rectification application before the AO on 15.06.2020 25.02.2021 and submitted that credit for FTC as claimed in the return should be given. In the rectification order dated 10.03.2021, the AO upheld the action on the ground that the Assessee has failed to furnish Form 67 on or before the due date of furnishing the return of income as prescribed u/s 139(1) of the Act which is mandatory according to Rule 128(9) of the Rules. 6. On appeal by the Assessee, the CIT(A) vide Order dated 03.09.2021 confirmed the Order of AO. The CIT(A) held that the Assessee has not filed Form 67 before the time allowed under section 139(5) of the Act, and therefore Form 67 is non-est in law. The CIT(A ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n, as the case may be, of any income-tax paid in any country or specified territory outside India, under section 90 or section 90A or section 91, against the income-tax payable under this Act; 9. It was submitted that the Board has power to prescribe procedure to granting FTC. However, the Board does not have power to prescribe a condition or provide for disallowance of FTC. The procedure prescribed in Rule 128 should therefore be interpreted in this context. Rule 128 is therefore a procedural provision and not a mandatory provision_ 10. It was further submitted that Rule 128(9) provides that Form 67 should be filed on or before the due date of filing the return of income as prescribed u/s 139(1) of the Act. However, the Rule nowhere provides that if the said Form 67 is not filed within the above stated time frame, the relief as sought by the assessee u/s 90 of the Act would be denied. The learned counsel for the Assessee submitted that in case the intention was to deny the FTC, either the Act or the Rules would have specifically provided that the FTC would be disallowed if the assessee does not file Form 67 within the due date prescribed under section 139(1) of the Act. It ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 16] 72 taxmann.com 16 (Allahabad) CIT, Central Circle vs American Data Solutions India (P.) Ltd [2014] 45 taxmann.com 379 (Karnataka) CIT-II vs Mantec Consultants (P.) Ltd [2009] 178 Taxman 429 (Delhi) CIT vs ACE Multitaxes Systems (P.) Ltd [2009] 317 ITR 207 (Karnataka). 13. It was submitted that as per the provisions of section 90(2) of the Act, where the Central Government of India has entered into a DTAA, the provisions of the Act would apply to the extent they are more beneficial to a taxpayer. Therefore, the provisions of DTAA override the provisions of the Act, to the extent they are beneficial to the assessee. Reliance in this regard is placed on the following cases and circulars: o Union of India v. Azadi Bachao Andolan [2003] 263 ITR 706 (SC) o CIT v Eli Lily Co (India) P Ltd (2009) 178 Taxman 505 (SC) o GE India Technology Centre P Ltd v CIT (2010) 193 Taxman 234 (SC) o Engineering Analysis Centre of Excellence P Ltd v CIT (2021) 125 taxmann.com 42 (SC) (Pg 106-109 of PB 2-Para 25 26) o CBDT Circular No 333 dated 2/4/82 137 ITR (St.) It was submitted that when there is no condition prescribed in DTAA that the FTC can be disallowed for ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
