9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (6) TMI 282X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ay. It has been explained therein that the order of the CIT (A)/NFAC was received on 16.12.2022 and the assessee filed the appeal before the Tribunal through online in prescribed Form No.36 along with all required enclosures on 15/02/2023 which is within time. However, the physical copies of acknowledgment along with all enclosures were submitted with the ITAT on 12/04/2023. The assessee requested the Bench to consider the date of filing of the appeal as 15.2.2023 and condone the delay in submission of the physical forms in the office of the ITAT. After hearing both sides and after considering the contents of the condonation petition along with affidavit, the delay in filing of this appeal is condoned and admitted for adjudication. 3. Alth ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sessee referring to various decisions including the decision of the Coordinate Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Shri Baburao Atluri vs. DCIT in ITA No.108 and 118/Hyd/2022 for the A.Ys 2018-19 and 2019-20 order dated 22.07.2022 submitted that an identical issue had come up before the Tribunal and the Tribunal has allowed FTC even though there was delay in filing of the same beyond the due date of filing of the return. He submitted that the Tribunal while allowing such FTC has relied on various other decisions. He accordingly submitted that this being a covered matter in favour of the assessee, the FTC should be allowed to the assessee. 9. The ld DR, on the other hand, relied on the order of the CIT (A)-NFAC. 10. We have heard the riva ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ficate in Form-67 is directory in nature Baburao Atluri and not mandatory and therefore the NFAC is not justified in denying the Foreign Tax Credit. 11. We find the Bangalore Bench of the Tribunal in the case of M/s. 42 Hertz software India Pvt. Ltd (supra) while deciding an identical issue has held that FTC cannot be denied to the assessee, where the assessee filed FTC in Form No.67, although belatedly since filing of such Form 67 is not mandatory but directory in nature. The relevant observation of the Tribunal from para 6 onwards reads as under:- "6. There is no dispute that the Assessee is entitled to claim FTC. On perusal of provisions of Rule 128 (8) & (9), it is clear that, one of the requirements of Rule 128 for claiming FTC is ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r follow different period for taxing the income and have different due dates for filing the return as compared to India. So Baburao Atluri far as the decision relied on by ld. DR in the case of Muralikrishna Vaddi (supra) is concerned, we find there is a delay of more than two years without any valid and reasonable cause. Therefore, the said decision in our opinion cannot be applicable to the facts of the present case. In any case, when there are two view possible, the view which is favourable to the assessee has to be followed as held by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Vegetable Products Ltd. reported in (1972) 88 ITR 192. Since, the assessee in the instant case has filed FTC certificate in Form No.67 with delay of only &# ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
