9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (3) TMI 662X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... assessment it was noticed that foreign dividend income of USD 2720 received by the assessee was not declared in the return of income nor she had filed revised return. The assessee claimed that she had paid taxes on dividend income (foreign tax) and claimed credit for foreign tax credit by filing Form 67 on 23.01.2021 during the course of assessment proceedings. The AO did not allow the credit for FTC on the ground that the assessee did not furnish form 67 on or before filing return of income within the prescribed due date under Section 139(1) of the Act, as required under Rule 128 of I.T. Rules. 4. Aggrieved, assessee filed appeal before the first appellate authority. The CIT(A) confirmed the view taken by the AO and held that failure to comply with the mandatory requirements under Rule 128 of I.T. Rules and non filing of Form 67 within the due date prescribed under Section 139(1) of the Act cannot be condoned. The relevant findings of the CIT(A) reads as under: - "4.11. Since the Appellant has not complied with the mandatory condition as mentioned in the subrules (8) & (9) of Rule 128 of the IT Rules and the delay in submission of form 67 does NOT stand condoned, the appellant ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... has already been taxed outside India. It is claimed that since the due date for filing the revised return of income was lapsed the assessee could not file the revised return of income. However, she recomputed the total income and filed Form 67. The assessee had also duly remitted the tax on the said income and requested the AO to allow the due FTC. The same has been denied solely for the reason that Form 67 has not been filed within the due date prescribed for filing return under Section 139(1) of the Act. This issue is no longer res-integra and the same is covered in favour of the assessee by the coordinate bench order of the Tribunal in the case of Shashidhar Seetharam Sharma (supra). The coordinate bench order of the Bangalore Tribunal had considered other coordinate benches orders and had held that (i) Rule 128(9) of the Rules does not provide for disallowance of FTC in case of delay in filing Form No. 67; (ii) filing for Form No. 67 is not mandatory but a directory requirement and (iii) DTAA overrides the provision of the Act and the rules cannot be contrary to the Act. It was concluded by the Tribunal that non-furnishing of Form No. 67 before the due date under Section 139(1) ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... erwise, in the year in which the income corresponding to such tax has been offered to tax or assessed to tax in India, in the manner and to the extent as specified in this rule: Provided that in a case where income on which foreign tax has been paid or deducted, is offered to tax in more than one year, credit of foreign tax shall be allowed across those years in the same proportion in which the income is offered to tax or assessed to tax in India." One of the requirements of Rule 128 for claiming FTC is provided by Rule 128 (8) & (9) of the Rules and the same reads thus: "(8) Credit of any foreign tax shall be allowed on furnishing the following documents by the assessee, namely:- (i) a statement of income from the country or specified territory outside India offered for tax for the previous year and of foreign tax deducted or paid on such income in Form No.67 and verified in the manner specified therein; (ii) certificate or statement specifying the nature of income and the amount of tax deducted therefrom or paid by the assessee,- (a) from the tax authority of the country or the specified territory outside India; or (b ) from the person responsible for deduction of such tax; or ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Act provides that Government of India can enter into Agreement with other countries for granting relief in respect of income on which taxes are paid in country outside India and such income is also taxable in India. Article 24 of India Australia DTAA provides for credit for foreign taxes. Article 24(4)(a) is relevant in the present context. Same is extracted below: "4. In the case of India, double taxation shall be avoided as follows: (a) the amount of Australian tax paid under the laws of Australia and in accordance with the provisions of this Agreement, whether directly or by deduction, by a resident of India in respect of income from sources within Australia which has been subjected to tax both in India and Australia shall be allowed as a credit against the Indian tax payable in respect of such income but in an amount not exceeding that proportion of Indian tax which such income bears to the entire income chargeable to Indian tax;" It was submitted by him that section 90 of the Act read with Article 24(4)(a) provides that Australian tax paid shall be allowed as a credit against the Indian tax but limited to proportion of Indian tax. Neither section 90 nor DTAA provides th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... that violation of procedural norm does not extinguish the substantive right of claiming the credit of FTC. Reliance was placed on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, in the case of Mangalore Chemicals & Fertilizers Ltd. v. Deputy Commissioner, (1992 Supp (1) Supreme Court Cases 21) wherein it observed that: "The mere fact that it is statutory does not matter one way or the other. There are conditions and conditions. Some may be substantive, mandatory and based on considerations of policy and some others may merely belong to the area of procedure. It will be erroneous to attach equal importance to the non-observance of all conditions irrespective of the purposes they were intended to serve." Further reliance was placed on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, in the case of Sambhaji and Others v. Gangabai and Others, reported in (2008) 17 SCC 117, wherein it has been held that procedure cannot be a tyrant but only a servant. It is not an obstruction in the implementation of the provisions of the Act, but an aid. The procedures are handmaid and not the mistress. It is a lubricant and not a resistance. A procedural law should not ordinarily be construed as mandatory; the p ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... restricted in scope to mistakes apparent on the face of the record. 15. In his rejoinder, the learned counsel for the Assessee submitted that Form No.67 was available before the AO when the intimation u/s.143(1) of the Act dated 28.5.2020 was passed. He pointed out that the AO or the CIT(A) did not dismiss the Assessee application for rectification u/s.154 of the Act on the ground that the issue was debatable but rather the decision was given that the relevant rule was mandatory and hence non-furnishing of Form No.67 before the due date u/s.139(1) of the Act was fatal to the claim for FTC. 16. I have given a careful consideration to the rival submissions. I agree with the contentions put forth by the learned counsel for the Assessee and hold that (i) Rule 128(9) of the Rules does not provide for disallowance of FTC in case of delay in filing Form No.67; (ii) filing of Form No.67 is not mandatory but a directory requirement and (iii) DTAA overrides the provisions of the Act and the Rules cannot be contrary to the Act. I am of the view that the issue was not debatable and there was only one view possible on the issue which is the view set out above. I am also of the view that t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
