ABHINAV LIMAYE,PUNE V. DCIT, CPC / ITO WARD 13(2), PUNE, PUNE

ITA 2641/PUN/2024

AI Insights

The case involves Abhinav Limaye, a salaried employee of Infosys Limited, who worked partially in the USA and received salary in USD, for which he paid taxes. He filed his income tax return for the assessment year 2017-18, declaring a total income of Rs.17,74,210. The return was processed by the Centralized Processing Center (CPC), which raised a demand of Rs.1,56,730. The CIT(A) dismissed Limaye's appeal due to an inordinate delay in filing, without considering the merits of the case. Limaye contested this decision, arguing that the delay was due to his posting abroad and his belief that all taxes were deducted and paid, thus no demand would arise. The Tribunal found merit in Limaye's arguments, particularly regarding the FTC, and remanded the case back to the CIT(A) for a decision on the merits after condoning the delay.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 474230 (ITAT-PUNE)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 28-03-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Assessment Year: 2017-2018
• Other Referred Cases: Ecoboard Industries Ltd vs. DCIT, Circle-1(1), Pune, Nandkumar Chandra vs. ITO, Ward-13(1), Pune, Sonakshi Sinha vs. Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), Shri. Subhankar Chakraborty vs. ITO, Ward 5(3)(2), Bengaluru, Brinda Ramakrishna Vs. Income Tax Officer
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: SHILPA N. C
• Assessee Lawyers: RAJENDRA AGIWAL
• Keywords: Condonation of delay; Salary income; Double taxation relief; FORM 26AS
• Section: 143(1); 139(1)

Judgement Text

" IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCH “A”, PUNE BEFORE SHRI MANISH BORAD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI VINAY BHAMORE, JUDICIAL MEMBER आयकर अपील सं. / ITA No.2641/PUN/2024 िनधाᭅरण वषᭅ / Assessment Year : 2017-18 Abhinav Limaye, B-605, Sai Marigold, Rahatani Road, Pimple Saudagar, Pune- 411027. PAN : ACLPL5320P Vs. DCIT, CPC, Bengaluru. Appellant Respondent आदेश / ORDER PER VINAY BHAMORE, JM: This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order dated 17.10.2024 passed by Ld. Addl/JCIT(A), Udaipur [‘Ld. CIT(A)’] for the assessment year 2017-18. 2. Facts of the case, in brief, are that the assessee is an individual having income from salary, house property and income from other sources and has furnished return of income u/s 139(1) of the IT Act Assessee by : Shri Rajendra Agiwal Revenue by : Ms. Shilpa N. C. Date of hearing : 22.01.2025 Date of pronouncement : 28.03.2025 ITA No.2641/PUN/2024 2 declaring total income of Rs.17,74,210/-. The return was processed by CPC and a demand of Rs.1,56,730/- was raised. After considering the reply of the assessee, Ld. CIT(A) dismissed the appeal filed by the assessee without condoning the delay. It is this order against which the assessee is in appeal before this Tribunal. 3. Ld. AR appearing from the side of the assessee submitted before us that the order passed by Ld. CIT(A) is unjustified. Ld. AR submitted before us that the assessee is a salaried employee working in Infosys Limited and for part of the financial year worked in United States of America (USA) and was paid certain amount in USD and has also paid taxes over there for which Foreign Tax Credit (FTC) certificate of Rs.1,17,406/- in Form No.67 was issued to him. Ld. AR further submitted that the fact of FTC of Rs.1,17,406/- was mentioned in Form No.16 issued by the employer and was duly appearing in Form 26AS but prior to making any adjustment, CPC has not issued any communication to the assessee. Ld. AR submitted before the Bench that it is true that the appeal before Ld. CIT(A) could not be filed within time limit prescribed under the Statute for which an affidavit along with application for condonation of delay was also furnished before Ld. CIT(A). Since ITA No.2641/PUN/2024 3 Ld. CIT(A) was not convinced with the reasons mentioned in the application for condonation of delay, the appeal was dismissed without going into merits of the case by not condoning the delay. Ld. AR submitted before the Bench that the assessee was posted abroad and was confident that the tax has been deducted on the salary received by him and therefore no demand would be raised against him. Only in the year 2023 when a demand notice was received by him he came to know about the fact that a demand has been raised by CPC against him in the year 2018 and then only he contacted a tax consultant who advised him to file appeal belatedly and immediately the assessee filed the appeal and also filed application for condonation of delay supported by an affidavit. Under these circumstances, Ld. AR prayed before the Bench that Ld. CIT(A) ought to have considered and allowed the application for condonation of delay and should have had decided the appeal on merits of the case. In this regard, Ld. AR relied on the following case laws :- “1. Decision on condonation of delay - Ecoboard Industries Ltd vs. DCIT, Circle-1(1), Pune ITA Nos. 1148 to 1151/PUN/2024 order dated 17.01.2025. 2. Allowability of Foreign Tax Credit - Nandkumar Chandra vs. ITO, Ward-13(1), Pune ITA No. 2329/PUN/2024 order dated ITA No.2641/PUN/2024 4 23.12.2024 and Sonakshi Sinha vs. Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) ITA No. 1704/Mum/2022 order dated 20.09.2022. 3. Form no. 67 was filed after receipt of intimation u/s 143(1) - Shri. Subhankar Chakraborty vs. ITO, Ward 5(3)(2), Bengaluru ITA No. 1088/Bang/2022 order dated 19.01.2023. 4. DTAA overrides the provisions of Act even in case of allowability of FTC. DTAA do not prescribe any condition of filing form etc for allowability of FTC - Brinda Ramakrishna Vs. Income Tax Officer (2022) 193 ITD 0840 (Bangalore-Trib), 4. Accordingly, Ld. AR prayed before the Bench to set-aside the order passed by Ld. CIT(A) and further requested to direct Ld. CIT(A) to condone the delay and decide the appeal on merits of the case. 5. Ld. DR appearing from the side of the Revenue relied on the orders passed by the subordinate authorities and requested to confirm the same. 6. We have heard Ld. Counsels from both the sides and perused the material available on record. In this regard, we find that Ld. CIT(A) has dismissed the appeal without condoning the delay and not deciding the appeal on merits of the case. We find that the assessee is a salaried employee working with Infosys Limited and for part of the period under consideration worked in USA and certain salary was paid to him over there & due taxes were also ITA No.2641/PUN/2024 5 deducted from that portion of salary which was also appearing in Form No.16 issued by his employer. It is an admitted fact that Form No.67 FTC certificate was not filed along with return of income but subsequently it was filed and Ld. CIT(A) has not considered the same. We also find that Ld. CIT(A) has not condoned the delay since the delay is inordinate delay. We find that the assessee is a salaried employee and taxes were already deducted & paid on his salary and apart from the delay, there is no mistake of the assessee and no taxes payable as held by the CPC. Considering the totality of the facts of the case and in the interest of justice, we deem it appropriate to set-aside the order passed by Ld. CIT(A) and remand the matter back to him with a direction to condone the delay and decide the appeal afresh as per fact and law after providing reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee. The assessee is also hereby directed to respond to the notices issued by Ld. CIT(A) in this regard and produce documents/evidences in support of grounds of appeal without taking any adjournment under any pretext, otherwise Ld. CIT(A) shall be at liberty to pass appropriate order as per law. Thus, the grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are partly allowed. ITA No.2641/PUN/2024 6 7. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced on 28th day of March, 2025. Sd/- Sd/- (MANISH BORAD) (VINAY BHAMORE) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER पुणे / Pune; ᳰदनांक / Dated : 28th March, 2025. Sujeet आदेश कᳱ ᮧितिलिप अᮕेिषत / Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. अपीलाथᱮ / The Appellant. 2. ᮧ᭜यथᱮ / The Respondent. 3. The Addl/JCIT(A), Udaipur. 4. The Pr. CIT/CIT concerned. 5. िवभागीय ᮧितिनिध, आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, “A” बᱶच, पुणे / DR, ITAT, “A” Bench, Pune. 6. गाडᭅ फ़ाइल / Guard File. आदेशानुसार / BY ORDER, // True Copy // Senior Private Secretary आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, पुणे / ITAT, Pune. "