9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (4) TMI 633X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... w the principles of law set down and without citing any proposition of law of binding nature contradictory could not have ignored the judgment on observation that it is not known as to whether the aforesaid decision has attained finality or not. Appeal of assessee is allowed. - ITA No. 2025/Del/2022 - - - Dated:- 13-4-2023 - Sh. Shamim Yahya, Accountant Member And Sh. Anubhav Sharma, Judicial Member For the Assessee : Sh. Vineet Garg, Adv. For the Revenue : Sh. B.K.Singh, Sr. DR ORDER PER ANUBHAV SHARMA, JM: 1. The appeal has been preferred by the Assessee against the order dated 29.06.2022 of CIT(A), National Faceless Appeal Centre (hereinafter referred as Ld. First Appellate Authority or in short Ld. FAA ) i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he return of income. On realizing the same, the assessee filed Form 67 in support of claim of foreign tax credit on 07/04/2021 and then filed rectification request on 07/04/2021 against the intimation order. The Ld. Asstt. Director of Income Tax, CPC (ADITCPC) passed rectification order dt. 22/05/2021 by not giving relief u/s 90/90A amounting to Rs.4,40,901/-. 4. Ld. CIT(A) has sustained the assessment considering the CBDT Circular dated 19.09.2017. 5. The assessee is in appeal raising following grounds :- 1. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred on facts and in law in dismissing the ground of appeal concerning the illegal action of the Ld. ADIT-CPC in amending the return of income filed by the assessee while processing the same u/s 143(1). ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ax Authorities below submitting that the requirement of Rule 128 is mandatory. 8. In regard to issue involved if the judgment of Bangalore Bench in ITA no. 454/Beng./2021 in Ms. Brinda Rama Krishna vs. ITO decided on 17.11.2021 considered it comes up that the Bench has taken note of the Board Circular no. 9 dated 19.09.2017 and held in para no. 16 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 requirement and (iii) DTAA overrides the provisions ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
