Nikhil Madan Mhaindarkar, Pune V. Income-Tax Officer Ward- 3, Pune

ITA 113/PUN/2022

AI Insights

The case involves Nikhil Madan Mhaindarkar, an individual employed by a company with operations in India and South Africa, who appealed against the order of the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi, which confirmed the denial of a foreign tax credit claimed in his income tax return for the assessment year 2019-20. The primary issue was the non-acceptance of Form No. 67, required under Rule 128(8) of the Income Tax Rules, 1962, which was not submitted at the time of filing the return but was filed later. The CPC, Bangalore, denied the credit for the foreign tax paid, leading to the appeal.

• Counselvise Citation: [2023] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 137133 (ITAT-PUNE)
• Duration Of Justice: 11 month(s) 13 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 22-01-2023
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Next Hearing Date: 09-01-2023
• Assessment Year: 2019-2020
• Appeal Filed On: 09-02-2022
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961, Income Tax Rules, 1962
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Section: 154; 143(1)

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCH “A”, PUNE BEFORE SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI S. S. VISWANETHRA RAVI, JUDICIAL MEMBER आयकर अपील सं. / ITA No.113/PUN/2022 िनधाᭅरण वषᭅ / Assessment Year : 2019-20 Nikhil Madan Mhaindarkar, D-903, Metropolitan Society, PCMC Link Road, Chinchwadgaon, Pune- 411033. PAN : ALOPM2978C Vs. ITO, Ward-3, Pune. Appellant Respondent आदेश / ORDER PER INTURI RAMA RAO, AM: This is an appeal filed by the assessee directed against the order of the National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [‘the NFAC’] dated 17.12.2021 for the assessment year 2019-20. 2. Briefly, the facts of the case are that the appellant is an individual deriving income under the head “Salaries”. The appellant is employee of the company based in India and South Africa. During the previous year relevant to the assessment year 2019-20, the appellant filed the return of income on 18.08.2019 claiming credit for foreign tax credit of Rs.2,24,896/-. Against the Assessee by : Shri B. D. Bhide Revenue by : Shri Ramnath P. Murkunde Date of hearing : 10.01.2023 Date of pronouncement : 23.01.2023 ITA No.113/PUN/2022 2 said return of income, an Intimation u/s 143(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘the Act’) was issued by the CPC, Bangalore on 15.01.2021 without giving credit for foreign tax credit for want of Form No.67. Subsequently, the appellant had filed Form No.67 on 02.02.2021 and also filed petition u/s 154 requesting for the rectification of the Intimation by giving credit for foreign tax credit. However, the said petition was rejected by the CPC, Bangalore vide order dated 17.03.2021 passed u/s 154 of the Act. 3. Being aggrieved, an appeal was filed before the ld. CIT(A), who vide impugned order had confirmed the action of the CPC, Bangalore by holding that the credit for foreign tax credit can be given as specified under Rule 128(8) of the Income Tax Rules, 1962 (‘the Rules’). Since the Form No.67 was not accompanied along with the return of income, the CPC, Bangalore was justified in not grating credit for foreign tax credit. 4. Being aggrieved, the appellant is in appeal before us in the present appeal. 5. We heard the rival submissions and perused the material on record. We find that the CPC, Bangalore had denied the credit for foreign tax credit for want of Form No.67 as provided under Rule 128(8) of the Rules. It is an admitted fact that the Form No.67 was not filed along with return of income. The CPC, Bangalore while ITA No.113/PUN/2022 3 processing the return of income cannot travel beyond the return of income and the documents accompanied by return of income. The CPC, Bangalore cannot grant credit for foreign tax credit based on the Form No.67, as submitted subsequent to the processing the return of income u/s 143(1) of the Act. Thus, we are of the considered opinion that the CPC, Bangalore had rightly rejected the claim of credit for foreign tax credit for want of Form No.67. Therefore, the ld. CIT(A) was justified in confirming the action of the CPC, Bangalore and the order of the ld. CIT(A) is just, proper and reasonable and does not call for any interference. 6. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands dismissed. Order pronounced on this 23 rd day of January, 2023. Sd/- Sd/- (S. S. VISWANETHRA RAVI) (INTURI RAMA RAO) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER पुणे / Pune; ᳰदनांक / Dated : 23 rd January, 2023. Sujeet आदेश कᳱ ᮧितिलिप अᮕेिषत / Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. अपीलाथᱮ / The Appellant. 2. ᮧ᭜यथᱮ / The Respondent. 3. The NFAC, Delhi. 4. The Pr. 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.