Case Law Details
Sobhan Lal Gangopadhyay Vs ADIT (ITAT Kolkata)
Sobhan Lal Gangopadhyay has filed an appeal against the order of the National Faceless Appeal Centre (CIT(A)) under Section 250 of the Income Tax Act. The appellant argues that the relief of tax paid in the Republic of Korea should not be denied under Section 90 of the Act due to the delay in filing Form 67. The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) Kolkata examines the case and refers to a previous decision in a similar matter involving Sonakshi Sinha.
Analysis: The appellant contends that the denial of relief under Section 90 of the Income Tax Act based on the delay in filing Form 67 is not justified. The ITAT Kolkata considers the decision in the Sonakshi Sinha case, where it was held that filing Form 67 is directory in nature and not mandatory. The tribunal agrees with this interpretation and concludes that the relief should not be denied solely due to the delay in filing the form. The appellant’s argument remains unchallenged by the respondent, who fails to present any contrary binding precedents.
Conclusion: The ITAT Kolkata allows the appeal filed by Sobhan Lal Gangopadhyay, stating that the Assessing Officer should not have denied the relief under Section 90 of the Income Tax Act due to the delay in filing Form 67. The tribunal refers to its earlier decision in the Sonakshi Sinha case, which established that the filing of the form is directory and not mandatory. Therefore, the delay should not result in the denial of tax relief.
FULL TEXT OF THE ORDER OF ITAT KOLKATA
Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.
