9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (1) TMI 648X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... g of Form No.67 is not mandatory but directory requirement. Since the facts of the instant case are identical to the facts considered by the Bangalore Bench orders, cited supra, we hold that the assessee cannot be denied the FTC for the reason that Form No.67 has not been filed within the due date specified u/s 139(1) - Also see M/S. 42 HERTZ SOFTWARE INDIA PVT. [ 2022 (3) TMI 834 - ITAT BANGALORE] - Appeals filed by the assessee are allowed. - ITA No.1041/Bang/2022 & 1042/Bang/2022 - - - Dated:- 13-12-2022 - Shri George George K, JM And Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu, AM Appellant by : Sri.Navneet S Kini, CA Respondent by : Sri.Sankar Ganesh K, JCIT-DR ORDER Per Bench : These appeals at the instance of the as ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... a country or a specified territory outside India and FTC) was not filed within the due date specified u/s 139(1) of the I.T.Act. 4. Aggrieved by the rejection of claim of FTC, the assessee preferred appeals before the first appellate authority. The CIT(A) confirmed the view taken by the AO. The relevant finding of the CIT(A) for assessment year 2019-2020, reads as follows:- 5.6 As per Rule 128(9) of the I.T.Rules, 1962 mentioned supra, the appellant is required to furnish Form No.67 well within the due date specified for furnishing the return of income under sub-section (1) of Section 139 of the Act. It is seen that the appellant has neither filed the return of income A.Y. 2019-20 on or before 31.08.2019 (the extended due date of fi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... iled Form No.67 during the course of assessment proceedings, the assessee was entitled to FTC. It was held by the Tribunal that Rule 128(9) of the I.T.Rules, 1962, does not provide for disallowance of FTC in a case of delay in filing Form No.67. It was further held by the Tribunal that filing of Form No.67 is not mandatory but directory requirement. The relevant finding of the Tribunal reads as follows:- 16. I have given a careful consideration to the rival submissions. I agree with the contentions put forth by the learned counsel for the Assessee and hold that (i) 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 requiremen ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
