JAYALAKSHMY VENKATARAMAN,CHENNAI V. ITO, NCW-17(6), CHENNAI

ITA 3128/CHNY/2024

AI Insights

The case involves Jayalakshmy Venkataraman, the appellant, who appealed against the decision of the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) which confirmed the denial of Foreign Tax Credit (FTC) by the Central Processing Centre (CPC) due to the late filing of Form No.67. The assessee had earned income from outside India and claimed FTC for taxes paid abroad, which was initially denied because Form No.67 was not filed along with the return of income. The Tribunal examined whether the late filing of Form No.67 should result in the denial of FTC, referencing decisions from the Madras High Court and other Tribunal cases that supported the view that such procedural requirements are directory.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 126652 (ITAT-CHENNAI)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 23-04-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Assessment Year: 2019-2020
• Other Referred Cases: Duraiswamy Kumaraswamy v. PCIT, Satishkumar Ekambaram v. ITO
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: R. RAGHUPATHY
• Assessee Lawyers: V.R.SRINIVASAN
• Keywords: Set aside; Salary income; Capital Gains

Judgement Text

"आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, ‘ए’ \u0001यायपीठ, चे ई। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘A’ BENCH: CHENNAI \u0001ी एबी टी. वक , ाियक सद\u0011 एवं एवं एवं एवं \u0001ी अिमताभ शु\u0018ा, लेखा सद क े सम\u001b BEFORE SHRI ABY T. VARKEY, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI AMITABH SHUKLA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./ITA No.3128/Chny/2024 िनधा\u000eरण वष\u000e/Assessment Year: 2019-20 Jayalakshmy Venkataraman, No.1B, Ramaniyam Aditya, 38, Balakrishna Road, Thiruvanmiyur, Chennai-600 041. v. The ITO, NCW-17(6), Chennai. [PAN: ACTPJ 1508 P] (अपीलाथ\u0016/Appellant) (\u0017\u0018यथ\u0016/Respondent) अपीलाथ\u0016 क\u001a ओर से/ Appellant by : Mr.V.R.Srinivasan, CA \u0017\u0018यथ\u0016 क\u001a ओर से /Respondent by : Mr.R. Raghupathy, Addl.CIT सुनवाईक\u001aतारीख/Date of Hearing : 19.02.2025 घोषणाक\u001aतारीख /Date of Pronouncement : 23.04.2025 आदेश / O R D E R PER ABY T. VARKEY, JM: This is an appeal preferred by the assessee against the order of the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)/Addl./JCIT(A)-1, (hereinafter referred to as “the Ld.CIT(A)”), Bangalore, dated 24.10.2024 for the Assessment Year (hereinafter referred to as \"AY”) 2019-20. 2. The main grievance of the assessee is against the action of the Ld.CIT(A) dismissing the appeal by which action of the CPC u/s.143(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act‘) was confirmed by denying Foreign Tax Credit (FTC) u/s.90 of the Act. ITA No.3128/Chny/2024 (AY 2019-20) Jayalakshmy Venkataraman :: 2 :: 3. The brief facts are that the assessee is an individual has earned, inter alia, income from outside India as well as Long Term Capital Gain which according to her was taxed in the foreign country and the assessee had filed her return of income (RoI) u/s.139(1) of the Act i.e. within the time limit specified therein for AY 2019-20 but since Form No.67 was not filed along with the CPC didn’t allow the claim of FTC to the tune of Rs.1,29,992/- by intimation order dated 16.02.2021 passed u/s.143(1) of the Act. According to the Ld.AR, the assessee noticing that for not filing Form No.67, the CPC has denied the claim immediately uploaded and preferred an appeal before the Ld.CIT(A) who was pleased to dismiss the same on the ground that the assessee ought to have filed Form No.67 along with RoI. 4. Aggrieved by the aforesaid action of the Ld.CIT(A), the assessee is before us. 5. We have heard both the parties and perused the material available on record. We note that the assessee is an individual having salary income, Long Term Capital Gains & income from other sources. During the AY 2019-20, the assessee received Long Term Capital Gains income from outside India which was taxed there and assessee filed belatedly Form No.67 for filing the relief u/s.90 of the Act which was denied by the CPC as well as the Ld.CIT(A), because, the assessee didn’t file Form ITA No.3128/Chny/2024 (AY 2019-20) Jayalakshmy Venkataraman :: 3 :: No.67 along with RoI. The only question is whether belatedly filing of Form No.67 is directory or mandatory. In this regard, we note that the issue is no longer res integra. The Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of Duraiswamy Kumaraswamy v. PCIT in WP No.5834 of 2022 dated 06.10.2023 had an occasion to examine the action of the Tribunal allowing the similar claim of assessee wherein it was held that filing of this Form in terms of Rule 128 was only directory in nature and held that the rule is only for the implementation of provisions of the Act and it would always be directory in nature. Similar view has been taken by the Tribunal in the case of Satishkumar Ekambaram v. ITO [ITAT Chennai] dated 04.11.2024 in ITA No.2069/Chny/2024. 6. Respectfully following the decision of the same, we set aside the impugned order of the Ld.CIT(A) and restore it back to the file of the Ld.CIT(A) with a direction to grant FTC to the assessee after verifying Form No.67. 7. In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed. Order pronounced on the 23rd day of April, 2025, in Chennai. Sd/- (अिमताभ शु\u0018ा) (AMITABH SHUKLA) लेखा सद\u0003य/ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Sd/- (एबी टी. वक ) (ABY T. VARKEY) \u0005याियक सद\u0003य/JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No.3128/Chny/2024 (AY 2019-20) Jayalakshmy Venkataraman :: 4 :: चे ई/Chennai, !दनांक/Dated: 23rd April, 2025. TLN आदेश क\u001a \u0017ितिलिप अ$ेिषत/Copy to: 1. अपीलाथ /Appellant 2. \u000e\u000fथ /Respondent 3. आयकरआयु\u0015/CIT, Chennai / Madurai / Salem / Coimbatore. 4. िवभागीय\u000eितिनिध/DR 5. गाड फाईल/GF "