9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (7) TMI 1087X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... te 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 assesse ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... UK Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement (DTAA) read with Section 90 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (the Act), while computing the income of the appellant. 2. The NFAC has erred in the facts and circumstances of the case and in law in disregarding documentary evidence filed in support of the FTC claimed under Article 24(2) of the India UK DTAA read with Section 90 of the Act i.e. Form 67 duly filed by the Appellant at the time of filing the original return and the revised return of income (on or before the due date for filing) including the computation of foreign tax credit and proof of taxes deducted in UK. 3. The NFAC has erred in facts and circumstances of the case and in law in disallowing the depreciation amounting to INR 1,492 while processing the tax return. 4. The NFAC has erred in the facts and circumstances of the case and in law in imposing interest amounting to INR 24,648 under section 234 A of the Act for alleged delay in filing of the Income Tax Return.. 5. The NFAC has erred in the facts and circumstances of the case and in law in imposing interest of INR 8,29,266/- under section 234B and 234C of the Act. 6. The NFAC has erred in law and facts in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the Act intimation as on 7 February 2019. In the return of income in schedule BP, assessee claimed depreciation of ₹1,492/- which was also denied. Thus, the original return filed by the assessee on 23 August 2018 was totally ignored. CPC considered revised return filed under Section 139(5) of the Act on 7th February, 2019 was considered as the original return and thus, late filing fee under Section 234F of the Act was also levied. This levy is demonstrated at serial no. 39D of ₹5,000/-. 07. Assessee is aggrieved with that order preferred the appeal before the National Faceless Appeal Centre, stating the above facts and challenging intimation under Section 143(1) of the Act. The learned CIT (A) (NFAC) held that assessee has filed return of income on 7th February, 2019, whereas the due date of filing of return was on 31st August, 2019 and form no. 67 required to be filed for claiming foreign tax credit was furnished on 7th February, 2019 which is beyond the due date of furnishing return of income and therefore, the claim of the assessee was in accordance with Rule 128 of the Income Tax Rules, 1962 (the Rules). Accordingly, Action of Ld AO in disallowing the foreign ta ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the domestic tax laws of the United Kingdom. The assessee also earned salary in United Kingdom of ₹ 60, 77,630 on which he paid a tax of ₹ 1,866,501. According to article 24 (2) of the double taxation avoidance agreement, assessee claimed foreign tax credit in its original return of income which was filed before the due date of filing of the return. For the purpose of claiming foreign tax credit assessee also filed form number 67 in terms of rule 128 (9) of the income tax rules before filing of the original return of income. The assessee subsequently revised its return of income. Along with the revised return once again form number 67 was filed. This tax credit was denied by the centralised processing Centre, income tax department Bangalore by passing an intimation u/s 143 (1) of the income tax act 1961. In the intimation the due date for filing of original return was mentioned at 31 August 2018 and date of filing of return was mentioned as 07/2/2019. Assessee filed the appeal before the National faceless appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi (the learned CIT (A)). The appellate order was passed on 20/9/2021 wherein the appeal of the assessee was treated as dismissed. The reason ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... before the due date prescribed for filing of the return of income. In the result ground number 1 2 of the appeal are allowed. 012. With ground number 3 assessee has challenged the disallowance of depreciation of ₹ 1492 while processing the tax return. The depreciation of ₹ 1492/ was also disallowed for the reason that 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. As the assessee is not in the business of power generation or distribution the depreciation was denied. The learned it 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 n ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
