Samiran Arunkumar Dutta Vs DCIT (ITAT Pune)
The case involves an appeal by Samiran Arunkumar Dutta against the order of the Addl. JCIT(A)-1, Bengaluru, for the assessment year 2020-21. The appellant, a salaried individual, had worked in Norway during part of the financial year and claimed a foreign tax credit of ₹1,46,511 under Section 90 of the Income Tax Act, read with the India-Norway DTAA. Although he revised his income tax return on time, he filed Form 67—necessary for claiming foreign tax credit—after the due date. The Centralized Processing Centre (CPC), Bangalore, denied the claim due to the delayed filing, a decision later upheld by the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC).
On appeal, the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) Pune ruled that while Form 67 was filed late, it was available with CPC at the time of processing the return. The tribunal held that filing Form 67 within the due date is a procedural requirement rather than a mandatory condition for claiming foreign tax credit. Consequently, it directed CPC to revise the intimation under Section 143(1) and allow the foreign tax credit. The appeal was thus partly allowed, reinforcing that procedural lapses should not override substantive tax relief entitlements.
FULL TEXT OF THE ORDER OF ITAT PUNE
This is an appeal filed by the assessee directed against the order of Addl./JCIT(A)-1, Bengaluru dated 28.03.2024 for the assessment year 2020-21.
2. Briefly, the facts of the case are that the appellant is an individual (Resident) deriving income under the head “salary”. During the year under consideration, the appellant worked with Emerson Electric Company (India) Private Limited. On an international assignment, he went to Norway for the period 19.01.2020 to 31.03.2020. The appellant filed the Return of Income for the A.Y.2020-21 on 21.09.2020. Subsequently, the return was revised on 03.2021 disclosing total income of Rs.8,59,256/- after claiming credit for Foreign Tax paid of Rs.1,46,511/- u/s.90 read with Article 24(2) of India-Norway Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement. However, the Form No.67 was filed by the appellant on 31.03.2021. The CPC, Bangalore, vide Intimation dated 24.12.2021 denied the claim for credit of TDS, as Form No.67 was not filed within prescribed time.
3. Being aggrieved by the above Intimation, an appeal was filed before the NFAC, who vide impugned order had confirmed the action of the CPC, Bangalore denying the claim of credit for Foreign Tax paid, as the Form No.67 was filed belatedly beyond the due date for filing of the return of income.
4. Being aggrieved, the appellant is in appeal before us in the present appeal.
5. When the matter was called on, none appeared on behalf of the appellant despite due service of notice of hearing. I therefore proceed to dispose of the appeal on merits after hearing the ld. Departmental
6. The ld. Sr. DR submits that CPC, Bangalore was justified in denying the credit for Foreign Tax paid, as the assessee had not filed Form No.67 as per amended provisions of the I. T. Rules.
7. I heard the ld. Sr. DR and perused the material on record. The issue in the present appeal is that whether or not the CPC, Bangalore is justified in denying the credit for Foreign Tax paid for the reason that the Form 67 was not filed within the due date for filing of the return of income as specified under the provisions of section 139(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘the Act’). Admittedly, in the present case, Form No.67 was not filed within the due date for filing of the return of income under the provisions of section 139(1), but Form No.67 was filed on 30.03.2021. The CPC, Bangalore had processed the return of income as on 24.12.2021, which means that Form No.67 was very much available with the CPC, Bangalore. Therefore, the CPC, Bangalore cannot deny the claim for credit for foreign tax paid merely because Form No.67 was not filed within the due date specified for filing the return of income under the provisions of section 139(1) of the Act, as it is merely a directory. Therefore, I direct the CPC, Bangalore to amend the Intimation u/s 143(1) of the Act by taking into consideration the Form No.67 filed by the appellant. Accordingly, the grounds of appeal filed by the assessee stands partly allowed.
8. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands partly allowed.
Order pronounced on this 14th day of August, 2024.
