TMI Blog2023 (1) TMI 1070X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ee. We are inclined to peruse the decisions of the tribunal cited by the assessee in the case of Ms. Brinda Ramakrishna [ 2022 (2) TMI 752 - ITAT BANGALORE] . On similar facts, the co-ordinate bench has considered the delay in filing of Form No. 67 as only a procedural defects and has also considered the decision of Mangalore Chemicals Fertilizers Ltd. [ 1991 (8) TMI 83 - SUPREME COURT] and Sambhaji and Others vs. Gangabai and others [ 2008 (11) TMI 393 - SUPREME COURT] which laid down the proposition that procedural law should not be construed as mandatory and should only aid the claim of substantive right. The said decision of the tribunal has also relied on various decisions, which held that provisions of DTAA override ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s.4,12,835 is doubly and the appellant being resident of India, taxes suffered in Sri Lanka on such doubly taxed income ought to be allowed as relief in terms of Article 23(2) of India-Sri Lanka Tax Treaty. 2.3 The learned NFAC has erred in not considering the Form 67 and other document, submitted before filing revised return, for claiming foreign tax relief by the appellant. 2.4 The learned NFAC erred in upholding the action of learned AO in not allowing foreign tax relief of Rs 26,718 as the Form 67 of Rs 26,718 has been filed on or before the revised return but not with the original return. 2.5 The learned NFAC ought to have appreciated the fact that in the revised return of income perquisite value of Rs. 37,774 relating t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... for which the assessee had visited Sri Lanka for a period of 159 days and the assessee was continued to be paid by the employer in India during the said period. The gross tax liability as per the revised return amounts to Rs.56,137/-. It is observed that the assessee has filed the revised return of income for the purpose of including perquisite value of Rs.37,774/-, pertaining to Sri Lanka taxes borne by the employer of the assessee and also claimed foreign tax relief. 4. During the impugned year, the salary amounting to Rs.4,12,835/-, attributable to the assessee s stay in Sri Lanka was offered to tax in India, being a resident of India, which was included in Form No. 16 and taxes duly deducted by the employer. The assessee states that ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... anted on the ground that the CPC could not verify the credits for tax payments made outside India. On this basis, a demand of Rs.5,464/- including levy of interest u/s. 234B and 234C of the Act has been raised by the ADIT, CPC. As against the refund of Rs.21,250/- claimed by the assessee, a refund of Rs.2,390/- was issued to the assessee. The total demand raised amounted to Rs.7,850/- which includes the refund granted to the assessee. It is observed that the assessee has made an application for rectification dated 19.01.2021 for the mistake of non grant of FTC as per Form No. 67. The assessee also filed another Form No. 67 dated 30.01.2021, along with the copy of the certificate of taxes paid in Sri Lanka. 6. The assessee preferred an ap ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ive (ld. DR for short), on the other hand, contended that the assessee is not entitled to claim FTC as Form 67 was filed belatedly after the due date of filing of return u/s.139(1) of the Act. The ld. DR relied on the decision of the Tribunal in case of Muralikrishna Vaddi, Visakhapatnam vs. ACIT/DCIT (in ITA No. 269/Viz/2021 vide order dated 14.06.2022) and the orders of the lower authorities. 11. Having heard the rival submissions and perused the material on record. It is pertinent to look into Rule 128 of the I. T. Rules for our perusal. The relevant extract is cited for ease of reference: Foreign Tax Credit. 128. (1) An assessee, being a resident shall be allowed a credit for the amount of any foreign tax paid by him in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... imilar facts, the co-ordinate bench has considered the delay in filing of Form No. 67 as only a procedural defects and has also considered the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Mangalore Chemicals Fertilizers Ltd. vs. Deputy Commissioner (1992 Supp (1) Supreme Court Cases21) and Sambhaji and Others vs. Gangabai and others [2008] 17 SCC 117 (SC), which laid down the proposition that procedural law should not be construed as mandatory and should only aid the claim of substantive right. 13. Furthermore, the said decision of the tribunal has also relied on various decisions, which held that provisions of DTAA override the provisions of the Act, as far as it is beneficial to the assessee. The Tribunal has held that delay in f ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
