9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (12) TMI 1082X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the order of AO denying Foreign Tax Credit to the assessee on the ground of belated filing of Form 67. 3. Facts in brief are that the assesse,being an individual and tax resident of India, filed his return of income belatedly on 31.03.2021 declaring total income of Rs. 93,44,290/-. The assessee claimed foreign tax credit (hereinafter called for 'FTC') of Rs. 20,92,790/- u/s 90(2) of the Act. The return was processed u/s 143(1) of the Act vide intimation dated 24.12.2021 determining total income of Rs. 93,44,290/-meaning thereby that returned income was accepted however, the assessee was denied the claim of FTC to the extent of Rs. 20,92,790/- and a demand of Rs. 28,48,010/- was slapped on the assessee. The said claim was denied because of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... a. The assessee claimed FTC for tax paid in USA u/s 90/90A read with Rule 128 of the Rule. However ,the assessee was denied FTC on the ground of late filing of Form 67 in consonance with Rule 128 of the Rules which provides that Form 67 has to file on or before the due date of return of income as prescribed u/s 139(1) of the Act and this is the compliance to be made in terms of Rule 128(9) of the Rules. Now the main question before us is whether mere late fling of Form 67 would result incomplete denial of tax which has been deposited by the assesse in USA where services were rendered. We have perused the Article 25 in the applicable DTAA between India and USA and also Rule 128 of the rules and provisions of Section 90(2) of the Act. Rule 12 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... so of the view that the issue in the proceedings u/s.154 of the Act, even if it involves long drawn process of reasoning, the answer to the question can be only one and in such circumstances, proceedings u/s.154 of the Act, can be resorted to. Even otherwise the ground on which the revenue authorities rejected the Assessee's application u/s.154 of the Act was not on the ground that the issue was debatable but on merits. I therefore do not agree with the submission of the learned DR in this regard. 17. In the result, the appeal is allowed." Similar ratio has been laid down in the other decision namely decision of Co-ordinate Bench of Bangalore in the case of Shri Pradeep Lankapally vs. DCIT in ITA No. 560/Bang/2021 for AY 2018-19 dated ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
