SRIKRISHNAN RAMAKRISHNAN CHITOOR,CHENNAI V. ITO, NCW-17(9), CHENNAI

ITA 3129/CHNY/2024

AI Insights

The case involves Srikrishnan Ramakrishnan Chitoor, the appellant, who appealed against the decision of the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) in Lucknow, which had confirmed the denial of Foreign Tax Credit (FTC) by the Centralized Processing Center (CPC) under section 143(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The denial was initially due to the non-filing of Form No.67 along with the RoI for the Assessment Year 2019-20, despite the assessee having income from outside India which was taxed abroad. The Tribunal examined whether the belated filing of Form No.67 is mandatory or directory and concluded it to be directory, thus allowing the appeal and directing the CIT(A) to verify the form and grant the FTC.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 126653 (ITAT-CHENNAI)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 23-04-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Assessment Year: 2019-2020
• Other Referred Cases: ITO vs Smt Chengam Durga, Duraiswamy Kumaraswamy v. PCIT, Satishkumar Ekambaram v. ITO
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: R. RAGHUPATHY
• Assessee Lawyers: V.R.SRINIVASAN
• Keywords: Set aside; Salary income; Capital Gains

Judgement Text

"आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, ‘ए’ \u0001यायपीठ, चे ई। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘A’ BENCH: CHENNAI \u0001ी एबी टी. वक , ाियक सद\u0011 एवं एवं एवं एवं \u0001ी अिमताभ शु\u0018ा, लेखा सद क े सम\u001b BEFORE SHRI ABY T. VARKEY, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI AMITABH SHUKLA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./ITA No.3129/Chny/2024 िनधा\u000eरण वष\u000e/Assessment Year: 2019-20 Srikrishnan Ramakrishnan Chitoor, No.1B, Ramaniyam Aditya, 38, Balakrishna Road, Thiruvanmiyur, Chennai-600 041. v. The ITO, NCW-17(7), Chennai. [PAN: ALFPS 9107 G] (अपीलाथ\u0016/Appellant) (\u0017\u0018यथ\u0016/Respondent) अपीलाथ\u0016 क\u001a ओर से/ Appellant by : Mr.V.R.Srinivasan, CA \u0017\u0018यथ\u0016 क\u001a ओर से /Respondent by : Mr.R. Raghupathy, Addl.CIT सुनवाईक\u001aतारीख/Date of Hearing : 19.02.2025 घोषणाक\u001aतारीख /Date of Pronouncement : 23.04.2025 आदेश / O R D E R PER ABY T. VARKEY, JM: This is an appeal preferred by the assessee against the order of the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)/Addl./JCIT(A)-1, (hereinafter referred to as “the Ld.CIT(A)”), Lucknow, dated 27.11.2024 for the Assessment Year (hereinafter referred to as \"AY”) 2019-20. 2. The main grievance of the assessee is against the action of the Ld.CIT(A) dismissing the appeal by which action of the CPC u/s.143(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act‘) was confirmed by denying Foreign Tax Credit (FTC) u/s.90 of the Act. ITA No.3129/Chny/2024 (AY 2019-20) Srikrishnan Ramakrishnan Chitoor :: 2 :: 3. The brief facts are that the assessee is an individual, who earned, inter alia, income from outside India as well as Long Term Capital Gain which according to her was taxed in the foreign country, and the assessee had filed her return of income (RoI) u/s.139(1) of the Act i.e. within the time limit specified therein for AY 2019-20, but since Form No.67 was not filed along with the RoI, the CPC vide intimation dated 19.03.2021 passed u/s.143(1) of the Act, didn’t allow the claim of FTC to the tune of Rs.1,33,201/-. According to the Ld.AR, the assessee finding that for not filing Form No.67, the CPC has denied the claim, immediately uploaded and preferred an appeal before the Ld.CIT(A) who was pleased to dismiss the same, on the same ground that the assessee ought to have filed Form No.67 along with RoI. 4. Aggrieved by the aforesaid action of the Ld.CIT(A), the assessee is before us. 5. We have heard both the parties and perused the material available on record. We note that the assessee is an individual having salary income, Long Term Capital Gains & income from other sources. During the AY 2019-20, the assessee received Long Term Capital Gains income from outside India which was taxed there and assessee filed belatedly Form No.67 for filing the relief u/s.90 of the Act which was denied by the CPC as well as the Ld.CIT(A), because, the assessee didn’t file Form ITA No.3129/Chny/2024 (AY 2019-20) Srikrishnan Ramakrishnan Chitoor :: 3 :: No.67 along with RoI. In such a scenario, the only question is whether belated filing of Form No.67 is directory or mandatory. And in this regard, we note that the issue is no longer res integra. And note that this Tribunal in the case of ITO vs Smt Chengam Durga (ITA No 1491/Chny/2023 dated 8.04.2023) had an occasion to examine similar claim, and taking note of the decision of the Hon’ble Jurisdictional, Madras High Court in the case of Duraiswamy Kumaraswamy v. PCIT in WP No.5834 of 2022 dated 06.10.2023 held that filing of this Form in terms of Rule 128 was only directory in nature, and further observed that the Rule is only for the implementation of provisions of the Act and it would always be directory in nature. Similar view has been taken by the Tribunal in the case of Satishkumar Ekambaram v. ITO [ ITA No.2069/Chny/2024 dated 04/11/2024]. 6. Respectfully following the decision of the same, we set aside the impugned order of the Ld.CIT(A) and restore it back to the file of the Ld.CIT(A) with a direction to grant FTC to the assessee after verifying Form No.67. 7. In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed. Order pronounced on the 23rd day of April, 2025, in Chennai. Sd/- (अिमताभ शु\u0018ा) (AMITABH SHUKLA) लेखा सद\u0003य/ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Sd/- (एबी टी. वक ) (ABY T. VARKEY) \u0005याियक सद\u0003य/JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No.3129/Chny/2024 (AY 2019-20) Srikrishnan Ramakrishnan Chitoor :: 4 :: चे ई/Chennai, !दनांक/Dated: 23rd April, 2025. TLN आदेश क\u001a \u0017ितिलिप अ$ेिषत/Copy to: 1. अपीलाथ /Appellant 2. \u000e\u000fथ /Respondent 3. आयकरआयु\u0015/CIT, Chennai / Madurai / Salem / Coimbatore. 4. िवभागीय\u000eितिनिध/DR 5. गाड फाईल/GF "