Case Law Details
Ganesh Vishwas Petkar Vs DCIT (ITAT Pune)
The Pune ITAT held that delay in filing Form 67 cannot be a ground to deny Foreign Tax Credit (FTC), as the requirement is procedural and not mandatory.
The assessee, a resident individual, earned dividend income from the USA and claimed FTC of ₹2.74 lakh under Section 90. The CPC denied the credit since Form 67 was filed belatedly (due to COVID-related delays), and the CIT(A) upheld this denial.
The Tribunal observed that Rule 128(9) does not prescribe disallowance for delay, and filing of Form 67 is only a procedural compliance. Relying on similar judicial precedents, it held that procedural lapses cannot defeat substantive rights, especially where income has suffered double taxation.
Accordingly, the ITAT set aside the order and remanded the matter to the AO to grant FTC after verification, thereby allowing the appeal for statistical purposes.
FULL TEXT OF THE ORDER OF ITAT PUNE
This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order dated 24.07.2025 passed by Ld. Addl./JCIT(A), Udaipur [‘Ld. CIT(A)’] for the assessment year 2020-21.
2. The appellant has raised the following grounds of appeal :-
“1. The learned ADDL/JCIT (A) Udaipur, erred in law and on facts in upholding intimation u/s 154 dated 03/01/2024 passed by CPC Bangalore thereby denying the foreign tax credit of Rs. 2,74,369/- pertaining to the foreign dividend income of Rs. 10,97,479 which is doubly taxed, i.e., in USA as well as India.
2. The lower IT authorities ought to have appreciated that:
– Rule 128(9) of the IT Rules does not provide for disallowance of FTC in case of delay in filing Form No.67.
– Filing of Form No.67 is NOT mandatory but a directory requirement.
– DTAA overrides the provisions of the Act, and the Rules cannot be contrary to the Act.
3. Appellant craves leave to add / amend /modify/ delete all / any of the grounds of appeal.”
3. Facts of the case, in brief, are that the assessee is a Resident Indian individual salaried employee in Veritas Software Technologies India Private Limited and has furnished his return of income on 08.12.2020 declaring income of Rs.62,49,270/-. The assessee is in receipt of dividend income from his investments held in United States of America which are taxable in India on which relief u/s 90 of the IT Act for Foreign Tax Credit deducted in United States of America for Rs.2,74,369/- was claimed by the assessee. The return was processed u/s 143(1) of the IT Act on 24.12.2021 wherein relief u/s 90 of the IT Act for Foreign Tax Credit deducted in United States of America was not allowed. Since due to Covid Pandemic Lockdown, Form 67 could not be filed before the due date of filing of return of income, however it was filed belatedly on 21.04.2022 and thereafter the assessee filed various rectification applications u/s 154 of the IT Act, however vide order dated 03.01.2024 rectification order u/s 154 was issued without making any change in original intimation order.
4. Being aggrieved with the above rectification order passed u/s 154 of the IT Act, the assessee preferred an appeal before Ld. CIT(A). After considering the reply and submissions of the assessee, Ld. CIT(A) confirmed the order passed by CPC and dismissed the appeal filed by the assessee.
5. It is the above order against which the assessee is in appeal before this Tribunal.
6. We have heard Ld. Counsels from both the sides and perused the material available on record including the paper book furnished by the assessee. In this regard, we find that it is the sole request of the assessee that the Foreign Tax Credit of Rs.2,74,369/- may kindly be allowed to the assessee since filing of Form 67 is held to be procedural requirement only and admittedly due to Covid Pandemic Form 67 was filed belatedly i.e. on 21.04.2022. In this regard, reliance was placed by Ld. Counsel of the assessee on the following decisions :-
(i) Suchi Agrawal vs. ITO (ITA No.601/Del/2024).
(ii) Monika Rathore vs. ITO (ITA No.290/AGR/2024).
7. On perusal of the above decisions in the case of Suchi Agrawal (supra) and Monika Rathore (supra), we find that under identical facts involving similar issue of allowance of Foreign Tax Credit on the basis of belated Form 67 has been allowed. Respectfully following the above decisions (supra), we find force in above arguments of Ld. Counsel of the assessee that filing of Form 67 is procedural requirement and violation of procedural aspect does not adversely affect the substantive rights of the assessee. Accordingly, we deem it appropriate to set-aside the order passed by Ld. CIT(A) and remand the matter to the file of Jurisdictional Assessing Officer with a direction to allow Foreign Tax Credit claimed by the assessee after verifying Form 67 filed by the assessee and after providing reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee. The assessee is also hereby directed to respond to the notices issued by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer in this regard and to produce relevant documents, evidences and submissions, if any, to support his claim without taking any adjournment under any pretext, otherwise the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer shall be at liberty to pass appropriate orders as per law. Thus, the grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes.
8. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.
Order pronounced on this 23rd day of April, 2026.
Author Bio
