JOEL ELIAH PUSANUR,DELHI V. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, DELHI

ITA 3517/DEL/2025

AI Insights

The case involves Joel Eliah Pusanur, a non-resident, who appealed against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-42, Delhi, which denied him a foreign tax credit of Rs. 12,38,077 for the Assessment Year 2019-20. The primary contention was the timing of the filing of Form No. 67, which was submitted after the due date but before the completion of the assessment. The Income Tax Department had initially accepted the return but denied the foreign tax credit, leading to a demand of Rs. 16,08,742. The Tribunal's decision reversed the lower authorities' stance, emphasizing that the procedural requirement of filing Form No. 67 does not warrant the denial of the foreign tax credit, especially when filed before the assessment's conclusion.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 785228 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 5 month(s) 1 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 29-10-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: D
• Assessment Year: 2019-2020
• Appeal Filed On: 28-05-2025
• Other Referred Cases: PCIT vs. Wipro Ltd, Brinda Ramakrishna v. ITO, 42 Hertz Software India (P.) Ltd v. ACIT, Vinodkumar Lakshmipathi V CIT(A) NFAC, Ms. Brinda Rama Krishna v. ITO
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: VIKRAM SINGH SHARMA
• Assessee Lawyers: SIDHESH CHAUGULE; VC; NOT GIVING CLAIM OF FOREIGN TAX CREDIT AT RS.
• Keywords: Revised return
• Section: 154; 90; 139

Judgement Text

" 1 ITA No. 3517/Del/2025 Joel Eliah Pusanur IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI (DELHI BENCH ‘D’ NEW DELHI) BEFORE SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI YOGESH KUMAR U.S., JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No. 3517/DE/2025 (A.Y. 2019-20) Joel Eliah Pusanur B-29B Ground Floor, Paryavaran Complex, Saidulajab South West Delhi, Paryavaran Complex, 110030, Delhi, New Delhi PAN: AAJPE8821A Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle International Taxation-1 (2)(2), Civic Centre, New Delhi Appellant Respondent Assessee by Sh. Sidhesh Chaugule, Adv(VC) Revenue by Sh. Vikram Singh Sharma, Sr. DR Date of Hearing 27/08/2025 Date of Pronouncement 29/10/2025 ORDER PER YOGESH KUMAR, U.S. JM: The present appeal is filed by the Assessee against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-42, Delhi [‘Ld. CIT(A) ’ for short] dated 31/03/2025 pertaining to Assessment Year 2019-20. 2. Facts in brief that, the Assessee is a non-resident has originally e- filed his return of Income under Section 139(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ('Act' for short) on 31.08.2019 and subsequently the return of Income was revised on 09.11.2019 declaring the taxable Income of Rs. 1,28,94,060/- by claiming relief under section 90/90A of the Act, of Rs. 12,38,077/-. The Assessee has also filed Form No. 67 on 19.04.2021. Printed from counselvise.com 2 ITA No. 3517/Del/2025 Joel Eliah Pusanur The return of Income was processed by the CPC u/s 143(1) of the act vide intimation dated 19.03.2021. The CPC has accepted return of income filed by the assessee of Rs. 1,28,94,060/- and denied the claim of Foreign Tax Credit of Rs. 12,38,077/- and raised a demand of Rs. 16,08,742/-. Against the intimation order dated 19.03.2021, assessee filed application under section 154 requesting to allow the claim of foreign tax credit However, the AO (CPC) rejected the application of assessee by not giving claim of foreign tax credit at Rs. 12,38,077/- and raised the demand of Rs. 16,08.742/-. Aggrieved with the rejection of rectification application, the Assessee filed an Appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). The Ld. CIT(A) ide order dated 31/03/2025 dismissed the Appeal filed by the Assessee. 3. The ld. Counsel for the Assessee submitted that the only reason for denying the deduction of foreign tax credit of Rs. 12,38,077/- is that the Assessee has not filed Form No. 67 on time. Further submitted that, the Assessee has filed Form No. 67 before completion of the assessment, therefore, the Assessee is entitled for deduction of foreign tax credit. Further also submitted that, the said issue is no more res-integra it is well settled law that filing of Form No. 67 is not mandatory and is only an advisory and by relying on the plethora of judicial precedents. Printed from counselvise.com 3 ITA No. 3517/Del/2025 Joel Eliah Pusanur 4. We have heard both the parties and perused the material available on record. The Co-ordinate Bench of the Tribunal of Mumbai Bench in ITA No. 1704/MUM/2022 vide order dated 20/09/2022 held as under:- “10. We have also put before the learned authorised representative decision of the honourable Supreme Court in civil appeal number 1449 of 2022 in case of PCIT versus Wipro Ltd dated 11 July 2022 as to why the condition of filing form number 67 on or before the due date of filing of the return of income should not be considered as mandatory in nature. 011. The learned authorised representative submitted that honourable Supreme Court was seized of the matter where in the same subsection twin conditions were mentioned, the honourable High Court and lower appellate authorities considered, one of the condition as mandatory and one of the condition as directory. He submitted that here section 90 or 91 does not lay down any condition of filing any form. The requirement of filing of the form is provided under rule 128 of The Income Tax Rules. Therefore, here, the situation is quite different. He submitted that these conditions have been considered by the coordinate bench in case of Brinda Ramakrishna. 012. We have carefully considered the rival contention and perused the orders of the lower authorities. Short question in this appeal is whether assessee is entitled to foreign tax credit even when form number 67 required to be filed according to the provisions of rule 128 (9) of the Income Tax Rules on or before the due date of filing of the return of income, not complied by the assessee, but same was filed before the completion of the assessment proceedings. Precisely, the fact shows that assessee filed return of income u/s 139 (1) of the income tax act. In such a return of income, she claimed the foreign tax credit. However, form number 67 was filed during the course of assessment proceedings and not before the due date of filing return. Rule 128 (9) of the Income Tax Rules 1962 provides that 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 return of income under sub-section (1) of section 139, in the manner specified for furnishing such return of income. We find that coordinate bench in 42 Hertz Software India (P.) Ltd v. ACIT [2022] 139 taxmann.com 448 (Bangalore - Trib.) wherein following its earlier order in the case of Ms. Brinda Rama Krishna v.ITO [2022] Printed from counselvise.com 4 ITA No. 3517/Del/2025 Joel Eliah Pusanur 135 taxmann.com 358 (Bang - Trib) it was held that \"one of the requirements of Rule128 for claiming FTC is that Form 67 is to be submitted by assessee before filing of the returns and that this requirement cannot be treated as mandatory, rather it is directory in nature. This is because, Rule 128(9) does not provide for disallowance of FTC in case of delay in filing Form No. 67. Same view is also taken by a coordinate division bench in Vinodkumar Lakshmipathi V CIT(A) NFAC Bang/2022 06.09.2022. It is well settled that while laying down a particular procedure, if no negative or adverse consequences are contemplated for non-adherence to such procedure, the relevant provision is normally not taken to be mandatory and is considered to be purely directory. Admittedly, Rule 128 does not prescribe denial of credit of FTC. Further the Act i.e. section 90 or 91 also do not prescribe timeline for filing of such declaration on or before due date of filing of ROI. Further rule 128 (4) clearly provides the condition where the foreign tax credit would not be allowed. Rule 128 (9) does not say that if prescribed form would not be filed on or before the due date of filing of the return no such credit would be allowed. Further by the amendment to the rule with effect from 1 April 2022, the assessee can file such form number 67 on or before the end of the assessment year. Therefore, legislature in its own wisdom has extended such date which is beyond the due date of filing of the return of income. Further , the fact in the present case is quite distinct then the issue involved in the decision of the honourable Supreme Court in case of Wipro Ltd (supra). Here it is not the case of violation of any of the provisions of the act but of the rule, which does not provide for any consequence, if not complied with. Therefore, respectfully following the decisions of the coordinate bench on this issue, we hold the assessee is eligible for foreign tax credit, as she has filed form number 67 before completion of the assessment, though not in accordance with rule 128 (9) of The Income Tax Rules, which provided that such form shall be filed on or before the due date of filing of the return of income. Accordingly, ground number 2 of the appeal of the assessee is allowed. 013. Other grounds of appeal are also revolving around the issue of claim of foreign tax credit and therefore those are allowed.” 010. We have also put before the learned authorised representative decision of the honourable Supreme Court in civil appeal number 1449 of 2022 in case of PCIT versus Wipro Ltd dated 11 July 2022 as to why the condition of filing form number 67 on or before the due date of filing of the return of income should not be considered as mandatory in nature. Printed from counselvise.com 5 ITA No. 3517/Del/2025 Joel Eliah Pusanur 011. The learned authorised representative submitted that honourable Supreme Court was seized of the matter where in the same subsection twin conditions were mentioned, the honourable High Court and lower appellate authorities considered, one of the condition as mandatory and one of the condition as directory. He submitted that here section 90 or 91 does not lay down any condition of filing any form. The requirement of filing of the form is provided under rule 128 of The Income Tax Rules. Therefore, here, the situation is quite different. He submitted that these conditions have been considered by the coordinate bench in case of Brinda Ramakrishna. 012. We have carefully considered the rival contention and perused the orders of the lower authorities. Short question in this appeal is whether assessee is entitled to foreign tax credit even when form number 67 required to be filed according to the provisions of rule 128 (9) of the Income Tax Rules on or before the due date of filing of the return of income, not complied by the assessee, but same was filed before the completion of the assessment proceedings. Precisely, the fact shows that assessee filed return of income u/s 139 (1) of the income tax act. In such a return of income, she claimed the foreign tax credit. However, form number 67 was filed during the course of assessment proceedings and not before the due date of filing return. Rule 128 (9) of the Income Tax Rules 1962 provides that 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 return of income under sub-section (1) of section 139, in the manner specified for furnishing such return of income. We find that coordinate bench in 42 Hertz Software India (P.) Ltd v. ACIT [2022] 139 taxmann.com 448 (Bangalore - Trib.) wherein following its earlier order in the case of Ms. Brinda Rama Krishna v.ITO [2022] 135 taxmann.com 358 (Bang - Trib) it was held that \"one of the requirements of Rule128 for claiming FTC is that Form 67 is to be submitted by assessee before filing of the returns and that this requirement cannot be treated as mandatory, rather it is directory in nature. This is because, Rule 128(9) does not provide for disallowance of FTC in case of delay in filing Form No. 67. Same view is also taken by a coordinate division bench in Vinodkumar Lakshmipathi V CIT(A) NFAC ITA No.680/Bang/2022 06.09.2022. It is well settled that while laying down a particular procedure, if no negative or adverse consequences are contemplated for non- adherence to such procedure, the relevant provision is normally not taken to be mandatory and is considered to be purely directory. Admittedly, Rule 128 does not prescribe denial of credit of FTC. Further the Act i.e. section 90 or 91 also do not prescribe timeline for Printed from counselvise.com 6 ITA No. 3517/Del/2025 Joel Eliah Pusanur filing of such declaration on or before due date of filing of ROI. Further rule 128 (4) clearly provides the condition where the foreign tax credit would not be allowed. Rule 128 (9) does not say that if prescribed form would not be filed on or before the due date of filing of the return no such credit would be allowed. Further by the amendment to the rule with effect from 1 April 2022, the assessee can file such form number 67 on or before the end of the assessment year. Therefore, legislature in its own wisdom has extended such date which is beyond the due date of filing of the return of income. Further , the fact in the present case is quite distinct then the issue involved in the decision of the honourable Supreme Court in case of Wipro Ltd (supra). Here it is not the case of violation of any of the provisions of the act but of the rule, which does not provide for any consequence, if not complied with. Therefore, respectfully following the decisions of the coordinate bench on this issue, we hold the assessee is eligible for foreign tax credit, as she has filed form number 67 before completion of the assessment, though not in accordance with rule 128 (9) of The Income Tax Rules, which provided that such form shall be filed on or before the due date of filing of the return of income. Accordingly, ground number 2 of the appeal of the assessee is allowed. 013. Other grounds of appeal are also revolving around the issue of claim of foreign tax credit and therefore those are allowed.” 5. By respectfully following the above ratio laid down by the Co- ordinate Bench of the Tribunal, we hold that the Assessee is liable to foreign credit as the Assessee has filed Form No. 67 before completion of the assessment. In view of the above, the Grounds of Appeal of the Assessee is allowed. 6. In the result, the Appeal of the Assessee is allowed. Sd/- Sd/- (S. RIFAUR RAHMAN) (YOGESH KUMAR U.S.) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Date:- 29.10.2025 R.N, Sr.P.S* Printed from counselvise.com 7 ITA No. 3517/Del/2025 Joel Eliah Pusanur Copy forwarded to: 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. CIT 4. CIT(Appeals) 5. DR: ITAT ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ITAT, NEW DELHI Printed from counselvise.com "