9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (1) TMI 598X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 04-2020 and direct the AO, CPC to consider the case of the assessee afresh after providing reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. At the same time, we direct the assessee to substantiate his claims before the AO, CPC. Assessee appeal allowed for stattistical purposes. - SHRI MANJUNATHA. G, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI MANOMOHAN DAS, JUDICIAL MEMBER For the Appellant : Shri M. Karunakaran, Advocate Shri J.C. Prakash, C.A For the Respondent : Shri Sajit Kumar, JCIT ORDER PER MANOMOHAN DAS, J.M: These two appeals filed by the assessee is directed against the order of the Learned Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals)-20, Chennai [CIT(A)] dated 07-07-2023 and pertains to the Assessment Years [AY] 20 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... non submission of Form 67 along with the return of income was due to lack of knowledge and not willfull or wanton. 7. The appellant submits that the Hon'ble ITAT Mumbai Bench in the case of Rohan Hattangadi Vs CIT (A) in ITAT No.1896/Mum/2022 dated 02/12/2022 has allowed the foreign tax credit in a case of delayed submission of Form 67 after referring to the decision of the ITAT Visakhapatnam relied on by the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals). 8. The appellant would be put to irreparable loss if the foreign tax credit is not granted due to the delay in filing Form 67 . 9. The appellant therefore prays that he may be allowed foreign tax credit of Rs. 28,65,292/- and the demand of Rs. 51,69,984 raised may be d ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 5. Being aggrieved, the assessee filed 1st appeal before the ld. CIT(A). However, the ld. CIT(A) vide order dated 07-07-2023 dismissed the appeal of the assessee. 6. The ld. CIT(A) after considering the submissions of the assessee observed that the assessee failed to file Form No. 67 within the prescribed time as per Rule 128 of the Income Tax Rules, 1963. The ld. CIT(A) further observed that the DTAA does not override Income Tax Rules and such rules are mandatory. The ld. CIT(A) relied on the decision of the ITAT, Vishakhapattanam Bench dated 14-06-2022 in the case of Muralikrishna Vaddi vs. ACIT in ITA No. 269/Viz/2021 while dismissing the appeal of the assessee. The ld. CIT(A) observed as under: 7.2. Now the question that need ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hat the above reason mentioned by the assessee in his written submissions is reasonable. The assessee has realized the filing of Form 67 only after the scrutiny proceedings were initiated by the AO. We also note that Form 67 has been filed with a delay of more than two years without any valid and reasonable cause. We also extract herein below Rule 128(9) of the IT Rules, 1962 for reference: 128(9) The statement in Form No. 67 referred to in clause (i) of sub-rule (8) and the certificate or the statement referred to in clause (ii) of sub-rule (8) shall be furnished on or before the due date specified for furnishing the return of income under sub-section (1) of section 139, in the manner specified for furnishing such return of income. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 22 so that it applies to all the claims of foreign tax credit furnished in Financial year 2022-23. It is hereby clarified that no person is being adversely affected by giving retrospective effect to this rule. 7.4. Explanatory memorandum makes it clear by specifying that no retrospective effect to amended rule can be given. Therefore, as far as assessment year under consideration is concerned, Form 67 can t be filed beyond due date of filing of return of income and time limit given by Rule 128(9) is strictly enforceable. In the present case, as has been stated above form 67 was filed with 678 days delay. Rule 128 stipulated mandatory filing of Form 67 by prescribed time for granting FTC credit to assessee. The AO, CPC while processing ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Bagchi vs. ACIT, Kolkata decided on July 19, 2023; II. ITA No. 1896/Mum/2022 (ITAT, Mumbai) decided on 02-12-2022; III. ITA No. 708/Bang/2022 (ITAT Bangalore); IV. ITA No. 261/JP/ 2022, Sri Ritesh Kumar Garg vs. The ITO, Ward 4 (2) decoded on 15-09-2022; V. Ms. Brinda Ramakrishna v. Income Tax Officer [2022] 135 taxmann.com 358 (Bangalore Trib); VI. ITA No. 71/JP/2023, Shri Sanjeev Agrawal, Jaipur v. DCIT, Central Circle-4, Jaipur decided on 10-05-2023. 10. We observe that the AO, CPC disallowed the claim of the assessee for FTC due to non-filing of the Form 67. The assessee furnished copies of Form 67 which were filed on 09-07-2020 for the Assessment Years 2018-19 2019-20 and sought remand of the case t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
