MS. NATASHA CHOPRA,DELHI V. DCIT,CIRCLE-16(1), DELHI

ITA 2292/DEL/2024

AI Insights

The case involves four appeals by Natasha Chopra against the orders of the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax, Appeals, ADDL/JCIT (A)-2, Ludhiana, which arose from the assessment orders passed by the Asst. Director of Income Tax, CPC, Delhi. The primary issue in these appeals was the denial of credit for foreign taxes paid by the assessee in Singapore, which was claimed under section 90 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The appeals were consolidated due to the similarity of facts and issues involved. The Tribunal found procedural lapses in the handling of the assessee's appeals by the CIT(A), particularly the lack of proper notice under section 250 of the Act, which led to a violation of the principles of natural justice.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 41850 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 03-02-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: E
• Assessment Year: 2020-2021
• Other Referred Cases: Bhaskar Dutta vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (International Taxation), Avik Anup Prabhu v. DCIT, Circle \\u2013 22(2), Ajay Kumar Mishra vs. DCIT, Ms. Brinda Ramakrishna vs. The Income Tax Officer, CIT vs. Axis Computers (India)(P.) Ltd., CIT-II vs. Mantec Consultants (P.) Ltd., PCIT, Kanpur vs. Surya Merchants Ltd., CIT vs. ACE Multitaxes Systems (P.) Ltd., CIT vs. American Data Solutions India (P.) Ltd., Anuj Bhagwati vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax- Circle- 1(1)(1), Mumbai, Jaipur Tribunal in the case of Shri Ritesh Kumar Garg vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward 4(2), Jaipur, Rohan Hatangadi vs. CIT (A), 42 Hertz Software India (P.) Ltd. vs. ACIT
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: AMIT KATOCH
• Assessee Lawyers: SATISH AGARWAL
• Keywords: Condonation of delay; Revised return; Period of limitation; Principle of natural justice
• Section: 250; 154; 139(1); 90; 207

Judgement Text

" IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘E’ NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI SHAMIM YAHYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI VIMAL KUMAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA Nos. 2290, 2291, 2292 & 2293/Del/2024 (Assessment Years : 2018-19, 2019-20, 2020-21 & 2021-22) Natasha Chopra 192/40, Ground Floor, Chitranjan Park, New Delhi-110 019 PAN : ADPPC 2225 D Vs. DCIT Circle – 16(1) Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by Shri Satish Agarwal, C.A. Respondent by Shri Amit Katoch, Sr. D.R. Date of Hearing 03.02.2025 Date of Pronouncement 03.02.2025 O R D E R PER BENCH : 1. All the four appeals filed by assessee are against the separate orders dated 31.03.2024 of the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax, Appeals, ADDL/JCIT (A)-2, Ludhiana [hereinafter referred to as ‘Ld. CIT(A)’] arising out of assessment orders dated 16.06.2021, 11.06.2021, 03.08.2022 & 02.02.2023 passed by the Asst. Director of Income Tax, CPC, Income Tax Department (hereinafter referred as ‘Ld. AO’) under section 154 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 -2- ITA Nos.2290, 2291, 2292 & 2293/Del/2024 Natasha Chopra vs. DCIT A.Ys. 2018-19, 2019-20, 2020-21 & 2021-22 (hereinafter referred as ‘the Act’) for Assessment Years 2018-19, 2019-20, 2020-21 & 2021-22, respectively. 2. All the four appeals involve similar facts, grounds and issues. For facility of convenience, all the appeals were heard together and are being disposed of by a common order. ITA No.2290/Del/2024 for A.Y. 2018-19 is taken as a lead case. 3. Brief facts of ITA No.2290/Del/2024 are that assessee/appellant had filed her return of income claiming credit of foreign taxes without filing Form No. 67. The Form No.67 was subsequently, filed. Rectification application was also filed to claim foreign tax paid in Singapore, which was rejected by learned AO vide order dated 16.06.2021. Against the order of learned AO, appellant/assessee filed appeal before the learned CIT(A) along with application for condonation of delay. The application for condonation of delay was allowed and appeal was dismissed by learned CIT(A) vide order dated 31.03.2024. 4. Being aggrieved, by the order of CIT(A), appellant/assessee preferred present appeal with the following grounds : (1) “That the order passed by the Learned ADDL/JCIT (A)-2 Ludhiana is arbitrary, biased, and bad in law and facts of the case. (2) That the Learned ADDL/JCIT (A)-2, Ludhiana has grossly erred in not affording an opportunity to the assessee to represent her case violating the principles of fair play and natural justice as no notice -3- ITA Nos.2290, 2291, 2292 & 2293/Del/2024 Natasha Chopra vs. DCIT A.Ys. 2018-19, 2019-20, 2020-21 & 2021-22 under section 250 of the Act was issued before finalization of the appeal which alone is sufficient to quash the appeal order. (3) That the Learned ADDL/JCIT (A)-2, Ludhiana has grossly erred in incorrectly mentioning that the notice was issued to the appellant under section 250 of the Act which is not visible even in the date of filing of appeal on the online portal of the department whereas no such notice was issued before finalization of appeal. (4) That the Learned ADDL/JCIT (A)-2, Ludhiana has grossly erred in further referring in her appellate order that the response provided by the appellant had been examined and considered whereas in the absence of notice no response had been filed during the course of appellate proceedings rendering order passed by the ADDL/JCIT (A)-2, Ludhiana liable to be quashed in law and facts of the case. (5) That the learned ADDL/JCIT (A)-2, Ludhiana has grossly erred in confirming the denial of credit of foreign taxes paid by the assessee as per section 90 of the Act of Rs. 8,73,340/- in the rectification order passed online under section 154 of the Act without providing any reasoning for rejection of the claim which denial of claim of credit of foreign taxes is bad in law and facts of the case. (6) That the learned ADDL/JCIT (A)-2, Ludhiana has grossly erred in confirming the action of the online portal (CPC) in rejecting the claim of the assessee for credit of foreign taxes disregarding the settled judicial precedents holding that the filing of form 67 along with return of income could not held to be mandatory for availing credit of foreign taxes. (7) That the Learned ADDL/JCIT (A)-2 Ludhiana has grossly erred in confirming the denial of credit of foreign taxes of Rs. 8,73,340/- disregarding the provisions of Article 25(2) of Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement between India and Singapore which denial is not sustainable in law and facts of the case. (8) That the appellant craves leave to add, alter or delete the above grounds of appeal at the time of hearing.” -4- ITA Nos.2290, 2291, 2292 & 2293/Del/2024 Natasha Chopra vs. DCIT A.Ys. 2018-19, 2019-20, 2020-21 & 2021-22 5. Learned Authorized Representative for the appellant/assessee submitted that learned CIT(A) erred in not affording opportunity of hearing as no notice under section 250 of the Act was issued. The notice under section 250 was not visible even in the date of filing of appeal on the online portal of the department. The learned CIT(A) erred in confirming the denial of credit of foreign taxes paid by the assessee/appellant as per section 90 of the Act in the rectification order passed online under section 154 of the Act was without any reasons. The assessee is eligible for claiming credit of foreign taxes under Rule 128(1) of the Income Tax Rules. Hon’ble Supreme Court vide its suo-moto order dated 10.01.2022 has extended limitation period for filing petitions, suits, applications, appeals by excluding period from 15.03.2020 to 28.02.2022 and further allowed 90 days from 01.03.2022 to comply with legal requirements. A Co-ordinate Bench in the case of Bhaskar Dutta vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (International Taxation) ITA No.1869/Del/2022 in para 12 of his order observed as under: “12. Undisputedly, assessee's the ground that it was not filed within the period prescter of under Rule 128 and secondly, the issue being a debatable one, cannot be a subject matter of rectification under Section 154 of the Act. At the outset, we will address the issue of limitation in filing Form 67. No doubt, as per the extant Rule, Form 67 in support of claim of foreign tax credit is to be filed within the due date of filing of return of income under Section 139(1) of the Act. The due date of filing of return for the impugned assessment year was 31.10.2020. It is a fact that the assessee filed the original return of income before the due date. However, Form 67 was filed along with the revised return of income was filed on 3105.2021. It is a fact that to prevent spread of COIVD-19 Pandemic, the Government imposed various restrictions. Taking note of the difficulties faced by litigants in complying with the legal requirement of filing -5- ITA Nos.2290, 2291, 2292 & 2293/Del/2024 Natasha Chopra vs. DCIT A.Ys. 2018-19, 2019-20, 2020-21 & 2021-22 petitions/suites/applications/appeals/other proceedings due to COVID-19, Hon'ble Supreme Court took suo motu cognizance and vide order dated 20.03.2020 extended the period of limitation in filing petitions/suites/applications/appeals etc. till 08.03.2021. On 08.03.2021, Hon'ble Supreme Court passed an order bringing to end the extension of limitation. However, due to recurrence of COVID-19 and drastic surge in number of COVID cases across the country, the Hon'ble Supreme Court again, vide order dated 10.01.2022, restored its earlier order extending the period of limitation and observed that the period from 15.03.2020 till 28.02.2022 shall stand excluded for the purpose of limitation and all persons shall have a limitation period of 90 days from 01.03.2022 to comply with legal requirements. Thus, in view of the aforesaid decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court, it has to be concluded that the assessee has filed Form 67 within the extended period of limitation as per the order of Hon'ble Supreme Court. That being the case, assessee's claim of foreign tax credit has to be allowed.” 6. Reliance is also placed on the following decisions : i. Avik Anup Prabhu v. DCIT, Circle – 22(2) ITA No.775/Del/2024 ii. Ajay Kumar Mishra vs. DCIT, ITA No.1835/Del/2022 iii. Ms. Brinda Ramakrishna vs. The Income Tax Officer 193 ITD 840 (Bangalore Tribunal) iv. CIT vs. Axis Computers (India)(P.) Ltd. [2009] 178 Taxman 143 v. CIT-II vs. Mantec Consultants (P.) Ltd. [2009] 178 Taxman 429 (Delhi) vi. PCIT, Kanpur vs. Surya Merchants Ltd. [2016] 72 taxmann.com 16 (Allahabad) vii. CIT, Central Circle vs. American Data Solutions India (P.) Ltd. [2014] 45 taxmann.com 379 (Karnataka) viii. CIT vs. ACE Multitaxes Systems (P.) Ltd. [2009] 317 ITR 207 (Karnataka) -6- ITA Nos.2290, 2291, 2292 & 2293/Del/2024 Natasha Chopra vs. DCIT A.Ys. 2018-19, 2019-20, 2020-21 & 2021-22 ix. Anuj Bhagwati vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax- Circle- 1(1)(1), Mumbai, ITA No. 1844/MUM/2022 (Α.Υ.2018- 19) & ITA No.1845/MUM/2022 (Α.Υ. 2019-20) x. Jaipur Tribunal in the case of Shri Ritesh Kumar Garg vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward 4(2), Jaipur, ITA No. 261/JP/2022 (A.Y. 2020-21) xi. Rohan Hatangadi vs. CIT (A) (Hon’ble ITAT Mumbai) xii. 42 Hertz Software India (P.) Ltd. vs. ACIT (IT Appeal No.29 of 2021) (DB of Bangalore Bench) 7. Learned Departmental Representative for the Revenue submitted that during appellate proceedings, notices were issued to assessee. 8. From examination of record in light of aforesaid contentions, it is crystal clear that learned CIT(A) vide ex parte order upheld disallowance of foreign tax credit paid by assessee in Singapore. Appellant/assessee claims that no notice under section 250 was issued or was visible on the online portal of the department before finalization of the appeal. Assessee claims that provision of Rule 128 of the Act for claiming foreign tax credit, filing of Form No.67 is not essential. Non-filing of Form No.67 would not disentitle the assessee to claim foreign tax credit. In view of the above material facts and well settled principle of law, in interest of justice, it is considered expedient to restore the matter to the file of the learned AO for fresh decision in accordance with law. -7- ITA Nos.2290, 2291, 2292 & 2293/Del/2024 Natasha Chopra vs. DCIT A.Ys. 2018-19, 2019-20, 2020-21 & 2021-22 9. In the result, appeal filed in ITA No.2290/Del/2024 is allowed for statistical purposes. ITA Nos. 2291, 2292 & 2293/Del/2024 for A.Ys. 2019-20, 2020-21 & 2021-22 : 10. As the facts and circumstances of the above mentioned appeals are admittedly mutatis mutandis similar to those discussed and disposed of in ITA No.2290/Del/2024 hereinabove, we hold accordingly and allow the appeals of the assessee for statistical purposes. 11. In the combined result, all the four appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced on this day 3rd February, 2025 Sd/- Sd/- (SHAMIM YAHYA) (VIMAL KUMAR) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Dated: 03.02.2025 Pr i ti Y adav, S r. PS * Copy forwarded to: 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. CIT 4. CIT(Appeals) 5. DR: ITAT ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ITAT, NEW DELHI "