9911796707
TMI Blog2025 (4) TMI 856X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eking rectification of the intimation made on the assessee u/s 143(1) of the Act and pertains to assessment year (A.Y) 2020-21. 2. The assessee had filed its original and revised return of income admitting the income earned in a foreign country and to that extent the tax deducted in that foreign country had been claimed as relief u/s 90/91 of the Act as per the provisions of DTAA agreement with that country. The CPC, Bangalore processed the revised return of the assessee u/s 143(1) of the Act without considering the relief claimed of FTC, for the reason that form No.67 was not filed by the assessee alongwith the return of income filed u/s 139(1) of the Act. Subsequently, the assessee filed the necessary F.No.67 and requested rectification ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... that Form No.67 was not filed along with the return of income filed under section 139(1) of the act. 5.1 Subsequently the appellant has filed Form No.67 on 11.01.2022 and requested for rectification of the order u/s.143(1) of the act. But the CPC, Bengaluru has rejected the claim of the appellant u/s. 154 of the act for non compliance of provisions under Rule 128 of the Income Tax Rules 1962. The relevant extract of sub rule (9) under Rule 128 is as under-: "The statement in Form No.67 referred to in clause (i) of sub-rule (8) and the certificate or the statement referred to in clause (ii) of sub-rule (8) shall be furnished on or before the due date specified for furnishing the retum of income under subsection (1) of section 139, in the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Rule 128 of the Income Tax Rule 1962." (ii) "Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in holding the provisions of Rule 128 of the Income Tax Rules 1962 as procedural instead of mandatory in nature." (iii) "The appellant craves to be allowed to add any fresh ground(s) of appeal and or deleted or amend any of the ground(s) of appeal." 5. We have heard both the parties. As is evident from the grounds raised by the Revenue before us, the solitary grievance of the Revenue is against the Ld. CIT(A) holding Rule 128 of the Income Tax Rules,1962, as being directory in nature and in turn allowing assesses claim to FTC despite filing form No. 67 belatedly and not alongwith the return of income u/s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
