DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CORPORATE CIRCLE, MADURAI, INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT V. RAMCO SYSTEMS LIMITED, RAJAPALAYAM

MA 40/CHNY/2024

• Counselvise Citation: [2024] 100 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 1489 (ITAT-CHENNAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 month(s) 30 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Miscellaneous Application
• Pronouncement Date: 24-06-2024
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: C
• Next Hearing Date: 20-06-2024
• Assessment Year: 2016-2017
• Appeal Filed On: 25-04-2024
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Assessee Lawyers: S J.PRABHAKAR; S.MURALIDHAR LD
• Section: 254(2)

Judgement Text

आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण ‘सी’ ायपीठ चे ई म । IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘C’ BENCH, CHENNAI माननीय +ी एबी टी. वक1, ाियक सद3 एवं माननीय +ी मनोज कु मार अ8वाल ,लेखा सद3 के सम:। BEFORE HON’BLE SHRI ABY T. VARKEY, JM AND HON’BLE SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL, AM M.A. No.40/Chn y/2024 [In ITA No.820/Chny/2023] (िनधा;रण वष; / Assessment Year: 2016-17) DCIT Corporate Circle Madurai बनाम/ Vs . M/s. Ramco Systems Limited 47, PSK Nagar, Rajapalayam-626 108. थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./PAN/GIR No. AAB C R -20 76- B (अपीलाथ /Appellant) : ( थ / Respondent) अपीलाथ कीओरसे/ Appellant by : Shri D. Hema Bhupal (JCIT) - Ld. DR थ कीओरसे/Respondent by : S/Shri J.Prabhakar & S.Muralidhar (CAs) -Ld. ARs सुनवाई की तारीख/Date of Hearing : 21-06-2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date of Pronouncement : 25-06-2024 आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal (Accountant Member) 1. By way of this miscellaneous application, the revenue seeks our indulgence in order passed by co-ordinate bench in captioned appeal on 08-11-2023. 2. Drawing attention the application, Ld. Sr. DR submitted that the assessee claimed relief u/s 90/90A for Rs.582.86 Lacs out of which sum of Rs.139.27 Lacs represent withholding tax deducted by an Australian client company on royalty payments. Initially the withholding was at 10%. 2 However, said company deducted additional withholding tax at 15% and deducted further sum of Rs.69.63 Lacs on 25-06-2019 which was much after due date of filing of revised return of income for AY 2016-17. The Ld. AO did not grant benefit of additional withholding. Upon further appeal, Ld. CIT(A) directed Ld. AO to grant relief of additional withholding tax. Aggrieved, the revenue preferred further appeal before Tribunal wherein it was submitted that the assessee did not file Form No.67 electronically and the assessee did not claim credit of the same either in original return or revised return of income. The Tribunal, in its order, upheld the order of Ld. CIT(A) allowing claim of additional withholding tax of Rs.69.63 Lacs. 3. It has further been submitted that the finding of Ld. CIT(A) that revised Form No.67 was filed before Ld. AO is erroneous since upon verification of records, it has been found that the assessee did not file revised Form No.67. Therefore, the assessee has not complied with the mandatory requirement of Rule 128(8) of Income Tax Rules. In any case, the revised Form No.67 was filed before Ld. CIT(A) and Ld. CIT(A) failed to comply with requirement of Rule 46A depriving Ld. AO to verify the veracity of the assessee's claim. It is been submitted that aforesaid points have not been considered by Tribunal in its order. 4. The Ld. AR, on the other hand, submitted that it was argued during hearing that the Rule 128 requiring filing of Form No.67 came into effect only from 01-04-2017 and therefore, no such form was required to be filed for AY 2016-17. The copy of relevant notification along with Notification No.9 dated 19-09-2017 issued by CBDT has been placed on record. 3 5. Upon perusal of para-6 of Tribunal order, it could be seen that the bench has extracted therein the substantial adjudication of Ld. CIT(A). The Ld. CIT(A) had noted that Rule 128 was inserted w.e.f. 01-04-2017 only and the same would not apply to year under consideration. Nevertheless, the certificate of withholding tax and Form No.67 was filed with Ld. AO. Therefore, Ld. AO was directed to allow the credit of Rs.69.63 Lacs. The bench concurred with the adjudication of Ld. CIT(A). 6. We are of the considered opinion that when there was no requirement of filing of Form No.67 for this year, the fact that whether the same was filed with Ld. AO or not would make no significant difference. For this year, the credit of the additional tax could be granted merely on the basis of certificate of withholding tax which the assessee had duly furnished. Therefore, the plea the no such form was available on record and violation of Rule 46A as raised by the revenue in this application, would not impact the aforesaid adjudication of co-ordinate bench. Therefore, no case of indulgence warranting interference u/s 254(2) could be made out by revenue before us. 7. The application stand dismissed. . Order pronounced on 25 th June, 2024. Sd/- Sd/- (ABY T. VARKEY) (MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL) ाियक सद3 /JUDICIAL MEMBER लेखा सद3 / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER चे4ई Chennai; िदनांक Dated : 25-06-2024 DS 4 आदेशकीOितिलिपअ8ेिषत/Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. अपीलाथ /Appellant 2. थ /Respondent 3. आयकरआयु=/CIT Madurai. 4. िवभागीय ितिनिध/DR 5. गाडBफाईल/GF