TMI Blog2023 (5) TMI 271X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d:- 27-4-2023 - Shri Kul Bharat, Judicial Member And Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia, Accountant Member For the Appellant : Shri Manoj Kumar, CA And Ms. Sonia Sharma (Assessee in person) For the Respondent : Shri Om Parkash, Sr.DR ORDER PER KUL BHARAT, JM : The present appeal filed by the assessee for the assessment year 2020-21 is directed against the order of Ld. CIT(A), National Faceless Appeal Centre ( NFAC ), Delhi dated 15.12.2022. The assessee has raised following grounds of appeal:- 1). That assessee is not agreeing with the default order u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act as framed by the CIT(A) is bad-in- eyes of the law and fact. 2) That the CIT(A) did not provide reasonable and adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee to know his view and point before dismissed the appeal. 3). That the assessee is a salary person. She submitted own ITR self as a salary income. She did not have proper knowledge of Income Tax. That time she submitted ITR self. She received intimation u/s 143(1) on-line dated 15.03.2021, after that she check this intimation and found a demand created by department. After that she meet proper income tax officer and d ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ritten submissions. For the sake of clarity, the relevant contents of the written submissions are reproduced asunder:- Respected Sir, During the course of the above-mentioned appeal, I am CA Manoj Kumar a representative of Sonia Sharma (PAN BOSPS3283Q). 1). That appellant had been service holder at NEC Technologies India Private Limited at New Delhi and That year appellant worked at Japan Branch same company. 2). That appellant submitted ITR with in time that year with a claim a relief of tax paid outside India U/s 90191 DTAA Rs.330400.00,which is outside income earn as a salaries Rs.1158615.00. 3). That the CPC processed return 15.12.2021 and created a demand with interest vide demand reference no. 2021202037028767250T. CPC did not consider our relief u/s 90191 DTAA Rs.330400.00. 4). That the CPC without given any intimation, any default notice, any mistake or any missing of your return, create a defective order, demand order, computation of tax. CPC without provide any opportunity for furnishing form 67, processed our ITR. This is against nature of justice. This is bad-in-eyes of the law and fact. 5). That the appellant is a cooperative nature a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r the reasons stated above, we are of the opinion that the High Court has committed a grave error in observing and holding that the requirement of furnishing a declaration under Section 10B (8) of the IT Act is mandatory, but the time limit within which the declaration is to be filed is not mandatory but is directory. The same is erroneous and contrary to the unambiguous language contained in Section 10B (8) of the IT Act. We hold that for claiming the benefit under Section 10B (8) of the IT Act, the twin conditions of furnishing a declaration before the assessing officer and that too before the due date of filing the original return of income under section 1139(1) are to be satisfied and both are mandatorily to be complied with. Accordingly, the question of law is answered in favour of the Revenue and against the assessee. The orders passed by the High Court as well as ITAT taking a contrary view are hereby set aside and it is held that the assessee shall not be entitled to the benefit under Section 10B (8) of the IT Act on noncompliance of the twin conditions as provided under Section 10B (8) of the IT Act, as observed hereinabove. The present Appeal is accordingly allowed. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nterest. b) To quash the order passed by the CIT(A) and deleted the demand of tax and Interest. c) Any other relief, whichever this Hon'ble officer deems fit and proper in the interest of natural of justice and fairness. 6. On the other hand, Ld. Sr. DR opposed these submissions and supported the orders of the authorities below. He submitted that the assessee was required to furnish Form No.67 as envisaged under Rule 128 of the Rules. Therefore, there is no infirmity in the order of the lower authorities, declining the claim of the assessee on account of Foreign Tax Credit. 7. We have heard Ld. Authorized Representatives of the parties and perused the material available on record. The contention of the assessee is that it is well settled for requirement of furnishing Form No.67 is directory in nature. The assessee should not be made to suffer when he is entitled for Foreign Tax Credit merely because Form No.67 could not be filed. In this regard, the assessee has placed reliance upon the decisions of Co-ordinate Benches of the Tribunal and the judgement of Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of PCIT vs M/s Wipro Limited in Civil Appeal No.1449 of 2022 order dated ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
