DELIGHT BHATIA,CHANDIGARH V. ITO, WARD 5(5), CHANDIGARH, CHANDIGARH

ITA 863/CHANDI/2025

AI Insights

The case involves Delight Bhatia, the appellant, who contested the rejection of his Foreign Tax Credit claim by the Income Tax Department. The credit, amounting to Rs. 2,26,444, was initially denied because Form 67, required under Rule 128(9) of the Income Tax Rules, was filed late. The form was submitted on April 3, 2023, well after the December 31, 2021 deadline. The Central Processing Centre (CPC) in Bangalore rejected the application, and the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) upheld this decision. The Tribunal, however, referencing several precedents, ruled that procedural lapses in filing such forms do not merit the denial of substantive tax credits, thus allowing the appeal.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 793015 (ITAT-CHANDIGARH)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 month(s) 26 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 22-09-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Assessment Year: 2021-2022
• Appeal Filed On: 27-06-2025
• Other Referred Cases: Mangalore Chemicals & Fertilizers Ltd. Vs Dy. Commissioner, Sambhaji & others V Gangabai & others, Pukhraj Singh Gujral Vs CPC, Duraiswamy Kumaraswamy Vs PCIT
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, Income Tax Rules
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: VIVEK VARDHAN
• Assessee Lawyers: PARIKSHIT AGGARWAL
• Section: 154; 90

Judgement Text

"आयकर अपीलȣय अͬधकरण,चÖडीगढ़ Ûयायपीठ, चÖडीगढ़ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DIVISION BENCH, ‘B’ CHANDIGARH BEFORE SHRI RAJPAL YADAV, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./ ITA No. 863/CHD/2025 Ǔनधा[रण वष[ / Assessment Year: 2021-22 Delight Bhatia, 3084, Sector 47-D, Chandigarh. Vs The ITO, Ward 5(5), Chandigarh. èथायी लेखा सं./PAN NO: BLHPS1647A अपीलाथȸ/Appellant Ĥ×यथȸ/Respondent Assessee by : Shri Parikshit Aggarwal, CA Revenue by : Shri Vivek Vardhan, Addl. CIT Sr.DR Date of Hearing : 10.09.2025 Date of Pronouncement : 22.09.2025 PHYSICAL HEARING O R D E R PER RAJPAL YADAV, VP The assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal against the order of the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [in short ‘the CIT (A)’] dated 05.05.2025 passed for assessment year 2021- 22. 2. In brief, grievance of the assessee is that he has Foreign Tax Credit which was claimed by him in the return u/s 90 of the Income Tax Act. This claim was of Rs.2,26,444/-, however, he Printed from counselvise.com ITA No.863/CHD/2025 A.Y.2021-22 2 failed to file Form 67 as per Rule 128(9) of the Income Tax Rules. This form was required to be filed by 31.12.2021 which was the due date of filing the return. The form was filed on 03.04.2023 alongwith an application u/s 154 of the Income Tax Act. This claim of the assessee has been rejected by the CPC Bangalore and thereafter, application u/s 154 has been rejected. The assessee has challenged this rejection of the application before the CIT (Appeals) but ld.CIT (Appeals) has dismissed the appeal. 3. With the assistance of ld. Representative, we have gone through the record carefully. It has been unanimously held by Hon'ble High Courts that filing of Form 67 as per the provisions of Section 90 read with Rule 128(9) is a procedural law and if it has been filed subsequently also, then benefit is to be allowed to the assessee. We draw support from the judgement of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Mangalore Chemicals & Fertilizers Ltd. Vs Dy. Commissioner (1992 Supp (1) SCC 21, Sambhaji & others V Gangabai & others 17 SCC 117, Pukhraj Singh Gujral Vs CPC (ITA No. 637/CHD/2024), Duraiswamy Kumaraswamy Vs PCIT, Writ Petition No. 5834 of 2022 (Madras High Court). Printed from counselvise.com ITA No.863/CHD/2025 A.Y.2021-22 3 4. Therefore, in view of the above judgements, assessee was entitled for the benefit of taxes paid outside India while determining the income of the assessee. Accordingly, we allow the appeal of the assessee and direct the AO to grant credit of Foreign Taxes paid by the assessee, 5. In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed. Order pronounced on 22.09.2025. Sd/- Sd/- (MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL) (RAJPAL YADAV) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER VICE PRESIDENT “Poonam” आदेश कȧ ĤǓतͧलͪप अĒेͪषत/ Copy of the order forwarded to : 1. अपीलाथȸ/ The Appellant 2. Ĥ×यथȸ/ The Respondent 3. आयकर आयुÈत/ CIT 4. ͪवभागीय ĤǓतǓनͬध, आयकर अपीलȣय आͬधकरण, चÖडीगढ़/ DR, ITAT, CHANDIGARH 5. गाड[ फाईल/ Guard File सहायक पंजीकार/ Assistant Registrar Printed from counselvise.com "