Avik Anup Prabhu Osho Drive Vs DCIT (ITAT Delhi)
ITAT Delhi held that Rule 128(9) nowhere debars claim of Foreign Tax Credit on account of delay in furnishing Form No. 67. The provisions contained under Rule 128(9) are directory and accordingly, allowed the credit of FTC.
Facts- The assessee is a resident and filed his return of income originally u/s. 139(1) of the Act. Subsequently, the assessee filed a revised return of income claiming Foreign Tax Credit amounting to Rs. 49,54,248/- alongwith Form No. 67. While processing the return of income of the assessee, the CPC disallowed assessee’s claim of FTC on the ground that the assessee had not filed Form No. 67 on or before due date of filing of return of income provided u/s. 139(1) of the Act.
First Appellate Authority held that since the assessee had not filed Form No. 67 within the due date provided u/s. 139(1) of the Act, the claim of FTC cannot be allowed. Being aggrieved, the present appeal is filed.
Conclusion- In case of Bhaskar Dutta vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (International Taxation) (2023) 147 Taxmann.com 481 (Delhi – Trib), while deciding the identical nature of dispute, the Coordinate Bench has held that the provisions contained under Rule 128(9) are directory and cannot override the provisions contained u/s. 90 of the Act. The Bench had further held that even Rule 128(9) nowhere debars claim of FTC on account of delay in furnishing Form No. 67.
