SMT. MAYA KAPOOR,GURUGRAM V. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(4), GURGAON, GURGAON

ITA 4809/DEL/2024

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 31547 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 07-01-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Assessment Year: 2020-2021
• Result in Favour of: Matter Remanded
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: SANJAY KUMAR
• Assessee Lawyers: RAKESH GUPTA; SAKSHAM AGARWAL
• Keywords: Principle of natural justice
• Section: 143(1); 22; 139; 234B

Judgement Text

"IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘SMC’, NEW DELHI Before Sh. Satbeer Singh Godara, Judicial Member ITA No. 4809/Del/2024 : Asstt. Year: 2020-21 Smt. Maya Kapoor, 284, Espace, Nirvana Country, Sector-50, Gurugram-122018 Vs Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(4), Gurgaon (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) PAN No. AASPS8817R Assessee by : Dr. Rakesh Gupta, Adv. & Sh. Saksham Agarwal, CA Revenue by : Sh. Sanjay Kumar, Sr. DR Date of Hearing: 07.01.2025 Date of Pronouncement: 07.01.2025 ORDER This assessee’s appeal for Assessment Year 2020-21, arises against the Addl./JCIT(A)-1, Pune’s DIN & order No. ITBA/APL/S/250/2024-25/1069242502(1) dated 29.09.2024, in proceedings u/s 143(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short “the Act”). 2. Heard both the parties at length. Case file perused. 3. The assessee pleads the following substantive grounds in the instant appeal: “1. That having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in confirming the action of Ld. ADIT CPC in not allowing the relief of Rs.2,04,153/- claimed by the assessee u/s 90/90A of income Tax Act, 1961 and that too without any basis and without appreciating the facts and ITA No. 4809/Del/2024 Maya Kapoor 2 circumstances of the case and in violation of principles of natural justice. 2. That in any case and in any view of the matter, action of Ld. CIT(A) in confirming the action of Ld. AO in not allowing the relief of Rs.2,04,153/- claimed by the assessee u/s 90/90A, is bad in law and against the facts and circumstances of the case. 3. That having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in confirming the action of Ld. ADIT CPC in assuming jurisdiction u/s 143(1) and not allowing the relief of Rs.2,04,153/- u/s 90/90A, more so when the same is outside the purview of section 143(1) of Income Tax Act, 1961. 4. That having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in not reversing the action of Ld. ADIT CPC in charging interest u/s 234A, 234B and 234C of the Income Tax Act, 1961.” 4. It emerges during the course of hearing that the learned lower authorities have denied foreign tax credit benefit to the assessee for the sole reason that she could not file/upload the corresponding Form 67 on or before the prescribed “due” date of filing return u/s 139 (1) of the Act. The Revenue vehemently contends that the foregoing compliance is indeed mandatory in nature and the assessee’s failure to this effect would disentitle her from claiming the impugned reopening. The assessee on the other hand has filed the tribunal’s recent order dated 31.05.2024 in her appeal ITA No. 783/Del/2024 for A.Y. 2021- 22 deciding the issue against the department. This clinching fact has gone un-rebutted from the Revenue side. I therefore, ITA No. 4809/Del/2024 Maya Kapoor 3 adopt judicial consistency in these facts to accept the assessee’s sole substantive grievance in principle and direct the learned assessing authority to frame it’s afresh computation as per law after verifying all necessary facts. Ordered accordingly. 5. This assessee’s appeal is allowed for statistical purposes. Order Pronounced in the Open Court on 07/01/2025. Sd/- (Satbeer Singh Godara) Judicial Member Dated: 07/01/2025 *Subodh Kumar, Sr. PS* Copy forwarded to: 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. CIT 4. CIT(Appeals) 5. DR: ITAT ASSISTANT REGISTRAR "