9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (6) TMI 267X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ated 30.12.2023 passed by Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal) (hereinafter referred to as the 'Ld. CIT(A)', in short), ADDL/JCIT (A) Madurai, pertaining to Assessment Year (AY) 2020-21. 2. The assessee has raised the following revised grounds which read as under: "1. Ld, CIT(A) has erred in confirming the action of the Ld. AO who denied the foreign tax credit amounting to Rs. 10,29,861/- to the Assessee for the reason, that form 67 submitted by the Assessee was not filed in due date. 2. The Ld. CIT(A) ought to have considered while adjudicating the appeal, the decisions laid down by the Principal Bench, Delhi in Isha Mago Vs. Assistant Director of Income-tax, Central Processing Center (ITA No. 173/DEL/2024) Rameshwar Prasad Shrivastava Vs. ITO (ITA, No. 1839/Del/2023), Vikash Daga Vs. ACIT (ITA 2536/Del/2022), Ajay Kumar Mishra Vs. DCIT (ITA No. 1835/Del/2022). In the aforesaid decisions, Hon'ble ITAT has held that filing of Form 67 is a procedural/directory requirement and is not a mandatory requirement and violation of procedural norm does not extinguish the substantive right of claiming the credit of FTC." 3. From the bare perusal of materials available on reco ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , the learned Departmental Representative ('Ld. DR') relied upon the findings of lower authorities. 8. During the course of hearing, the Ld. AR humbly prayed that the impugned order dated 30.12.2023 passed by Ld. CIT(A) should be set aside and the present appeal filed by the assessee should be allowed and in support of his argument / claim, Ld. AR relied on orders of the co-ordinate Benches of ITAT, as follows: • Order dated 04.04.2024 in the case of Isha Mago vs. Asstt. Director of Income Tax, Central Processing Centre in ITA No. 173/Del/2024. • Order dated 11.09.2023 in the case of Rameshwar Prasad Shrivastava vs. ITO, in ITA No. 1839/Del/2023. • Order dated 14.06.2023 in the case of Vikash Daga vs. ACIT in ITA No. 2536/Del/2022. • Order dated 17.04.2023 in the case of Ajay Kumar Mishra vs. DCIT in ITA No. 1835/Del/2022. 8.1 For the ease of ready reference we reproduced the decisions of the Co-ordinate Benches of ITAT, as under: In the case of Isha Mago vs. Asstt. Director of Income Tax (supra), held as under: "5.2. It is also noticed that under similar facts and circumstances the ITAT Delhi Bench 'B' in the case of Eastman Industries Ltd. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... [F. No. 506/42/81-FTD] dated 2-4-1982. 6. There is no condition prescribed in DTAA that the FTC can be disallowed for non- compliance of any procedural provision. As the provisions of DTAA overrides the provisions of the Act, the assessee has vested right to claim the FTC under the tax treaty, and the same cannot be disallowed for mere delay in compliance of a procedural provision. In other words, we would like to submit 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 only 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. 7. That the lower authorities intends to disallow the claim of the assessee in terms of Rule 128(9), however as stated above, the provisions laid down in the Income Tax Rules shall stand to be overridden by the specific provisions mentioned in the DTAA more so to the extent that the same is beneficial to the tax payer. And as such, since the DTAA does not specifically state to disallow the claim of FTC on mere delay in filing of F ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... credit) Assessment year 2018- 19-Assessee claimed foreign tax credit under section 90/90A Assessing Officer disallowed claim, on ground that assessee had not filed Form No. 67 along with return Assessee filed Form No. 67 before Commissioner (Appeals) Commissioner (Appeals) held that since assessee had failed to file Form No. 67 within due date specified for filing return under section 139(1), Assessing Officer had rightly disallowed claim for foreign tax credit - It was noted that Bangalore Bench of Tribunal on identical issue in case of Ms. Brinda Ramakrishna v. ITO [2022] 135 taxmann.com 358/193 ITD 840 held that non-furnishing of Form No. 67 before due date specified for furnishing return under section 139(1) was not fatal to claim for foreign tax credit - Whether Assessing Officer was to be directed to give credit for foreign tax as per Form No. 67 filed before Commissioner (Appeals) Held, yes [Paras 5 and 6] [In favour of assessee] * Ritesh Kumar Garg Vs ITO in ITA No. 261/JP/2022 dated 15/09/2022 - ITAT Jaipur Bench held that:- Held that filing of Form 67, in my view, is a procedural/directory requirement and is not a mandatory requirement. Therefore, violation of procedu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
