SOUMIK CHATTERJEE,KOLKATA V. ITO, WARD 33(2), KOLKATA

ITA 1508/KOL/2025

AI Insights

The case involves Soumik Chatterjee, the appellant, who appealed against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) which upheld the AO's decision to disallow a foreign tax credit due to the late filing of Form 67. The appellant had initially claimed a foreign tax credit in his revised return of income for taxes paid on income accrued from Canada. However, Form 67, necessary for claiming the credit, was filed after the due date. The Tribunal referenced several precedents where it was held that the late filing of Form 67 should not bar the claim for foreign tax credit, leading to the decision in favor of the appellant.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 822820 (ITAT-KOLKATA)
• Duration Of Justice: 5 month(s) 9 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 23-12-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Assessment Year: 2024-2025
• Appeal Filed On: 14-07-2025
• Other Referred Cases: Mahua Bagchi Vs. ACIT, Circle 61, Kolkata, Atanu Mukherjee Vs. ITO, Sobhan Lal Gangopadhyay Vs. ADIT
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Set aside; Revised return; Double taxation relief
• Section: 154; 90

Judgement Text

"IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “SMC” BENCH,KOLKATA SHRI RAJESH KUMAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.A. No.1508/Kol/2025 (Assessment Year 2024-25) Soumik Chatterjee, 7 Prasanna Mandir, Gope Lane, Entally, Kolkata - 700014 [PAN: AUWPC6558M]..……..…...……………....Appellant vs. ITO Ward 33(2), Kolkata, 10, Middleton Row, Calcutta - 700071................................. Respondent Appearances by: Assessee represented by : C.M. Rai, AR Department represented by : Monalisa Pal Mukherjee, Sr. DR Date of concluding the hearing : 18.12.2025 Date of pronouncing the order : 23.12.2025 O R D E R The present appeal filed by the assessee arises from order dated 03.01.2025passed u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereafter “the Act”) by the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Additional/Joint Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)[hereafter “the Ld. Addl/JCIT(A)]. 2. The only issue raised by the assessee is against the order of Ld. CIT(A) upholding the order of AO wherein disallowed the foreign tax credit due to delay in filing Form 67. 3. After hearing the rival contentions and perusing the material available on record, we find that the assessee has filed the return of income on 31.07.2024 which was declared defective/incomplete by CPC. Further the assessee filed his revised return of income on 28.08.2024 declaring total income of Rs. 22,36,190/-. In the revised return while computing his tax liability, the assessee claimed relief u/s 90/90A of the Printed from counselvise.com 2 ITA No.1508/Kol/2025 Soumik Chatterjee Act amounting to Rs. 5,22,964/- and consequently claimed a refund of Rs. 1,61,640/-. We note that the Form 67 was filed by the assessee on 30.01.2025. We note that the tax amounting to Rs. 2,20,926/- was payable on the income of Rs. 12,85,576/- accrued from Canada. We note that during the appellate proceedings before the Ld. CIT(A), the appellant filed statement of computation of income claiming tax relief of Rs. 2,20,926/- (foreign tax credit) instead of Rs. 5,22,964/- as claimed in his revised return of income. However, the Ld. CIT(A) dismissed the appeal of the assessee on the ground that the Form 67 was not filed in time. In our opinion the foreign tax credit cannot be denied mere for the reason of late filing of form 67. We note that the case is squarely covered by the decision of coordinate Benches wherein the coordinate Bench has held that late filing of Form 67 would not be a bar in claiming credit in respect of foreign tax and has been decided in favour of the assessee. In the case of Mahua Bagchi Vs. ACIT, Circle 61, Kolkata, ITA No. 3/Kol/2023, dated 19.07.2023. The operative part of the said order is extracted below: “3. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee is an employee of Cognizant Technology Solutions India Pvt. Ltd. since 1999 and was transferred to UK in May, 2008 and worked in UK till September, 2020. Thereafter the assessee was again transferred to India. The assessee got benefits from the employer in the form of equity shares granted to her under Employee Stock Option Plan (in short ‘ESOP’) and restricted stock. These stocks got vested over a period of four years if the assessee worked for the said employer company under ESOP. The profit which goes to the assessee would be determined on the basis of grant price of $19.66 and the sale price. Accordingly, the tax was deducted in UK amounting to Rs. 17,72,470/- which was claimed by the assessee as foreign tax u/s 90 of the Act. However, Form-67 as required to be filed on or before filing the return of income u/s 139(1) of the Act was not filed. The assessee filed the return of income after the due date and also filed Form-67 with the delay of two and a half years from the date of filing return. The AO CPC passed the order u/s 143(1) of the Act dated 28.03.2019 and the claim was allowed in respect of foreign tax. However, when the assessee filed the form 67 in respect of foreign tax deducted, the AO by passing order u/s 154 of the Actwithdrew the foreign tax credit of Rs. 17,72,470/- on the ground that the assessee has filed Form-67 two and a half years after the due date of filing the return. 4. Ld. CIT(A) also dismissed the appeal of the assessee of the assessee upholding the order of AO on the ground that form 67 was not filed in term of provisions of Rule 128 of Income Tax Rules,1962 on or before the due date of return of income u/s 139(10 of the Act. Printed from counselvise.com 3 ITA No.1508/Kol/2025 Soumik Chatterjee 5. After hearing rival contentions and perusing the material on record, we find that the assessee served abroad and some foreign tax to the tune of Rs. 17,72,470/- was deducted in United Kingdom under DTAA between India and UK and provision of Section 90(2) of the Act. We also note that Rule 128 sub-Rule 9 provides that Form-67 should be filed on or before the due date of filing the return of income. However, we note that nowhere it is stated that in case of delayed filing of Form-67 by way of foreign tax credit which is deducted from the assessee in foreign country i.e U.K. would be denied. Accordingly, we are of the considered view that the assessee is entitled to get this foreign tax credit of Rs. 17,72,470/- u/s 90 of the Act. We also note that the claim in respect of foreign tax was allowed in the order passed u/s 143(1) of the dated 28.03.2019 and was withdrawn by the AO by passing order u/s 154 of the Act when the assessee filed form 67 before the AO. In our opinion the credit in respect of foreign tax cannot be denied to the assessee for the technicality of not filing the form 67 within the due date of return u/s 139(1) of the Act. The case of the assessee finds support from the decision of Coordinate Benches inthe case of Atanu Mukherjee Vs. ITO in ITA No. 439/KOL/2022 for AY 2020-21 order dated 20.12.2022 and Sobhan Lal Gangopadhyay Vs. ADIT in ITA No. 782/KOL/2022 for AY 2020-21 order dated 09.05.2023. 6. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed. 4. Therefore, we respectfully following the decision of the coordinate Bench hold that the mere late filing of Form 67 cannot be ground for denying foreign tax credit to the assessee as late filing Form 67 within due date of return u/s 139(1) of the Act is a technical and not fatal on the part of the assessee. Consequently, we set aside the order of Ld. CIT(A) and direct the AO to give credit for foreign tax credit to the assessee. 5. In result, appeal of the assessee is allowed. Order pronounced on 23.12.2025 Sd/- (Rajesh Kumar) Accountant Member Dated: 23.12.2025 AK,Sr.P.S. Printed from counselvise.com 4 ITA No.1508/Kol/2025 Soumik Chatterjee Copy of the order forwarded to: 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. Pr. CIT 4. CIT(A) 5. CIT(DR) //True copy// By order Assistant Registrar, Kolkata Benches Printed from counselvise.com "