IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI “B” BENCH: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI KUL BHARAT, JUDICIAL MEMBER &

SHRI M.BALAGANESH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No.2804/Del/2023 [Assessment Year : 2021-22]

ORDER

PER KUL BHARAT, JM :

The present appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order passed by Ld.CIT(A), National Faceless Appeal Centre (“NFAC”), Delhi dated

25.08.2023 for the assessment year 2021-22.

2. The assessee has raised following grounds of appeal:-

1. “On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the National Faceless Appeal Centre ('NFAC") erred in not directing rectification of intimation u/s.143(1) dated 13.10.2022, wherein claim of Foreign Tax Credit u/s.90 had not been allowed to the Assessee.

2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the National Faceless Appeal Centre ('NFAC') erred in returning findings at Para 6 which were never subject matter of the intimation u/s.143(1) nor order u/s.154 dated 24.01.2023, and were never confronted to the Assessee during appeal.

3. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the National Faceless Appeal Centre ('NFAC') erred in returning adverse inferences as to late filing of Form 67, without even enquiring into reasons thereof.

4. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the National Faceless Appeal Centre ('NFAC') erred in holding that vide order u/s.154 dated 24.01.2023, the Assessee's application had been rejected, when at Pages 14 & 15 of the said order, the claim had been duly allowed, and only omitted to be considered in the computation.

The Assessee seeks leave to add to, modify, forego, or otherwise alter all or any of the grounds of appeal as above.

3. The only grievance of the assessee is that the Assessing Officer (“AO”) while computing the tax liability, did not give benefit of section 90 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (“the Act”) i.e. tax credit paid in the source country.

4. Ld. Counsel for the assessee in this regard submitted that Ld.CIT(A) erred in returning the finding that the AO has rejected the claim of the assessee. However, as per the rectification order, claim of the assessee was allowed. Ld. Counsel for the assessee also drew our attention to Form No.67 which was enclosed with the rectification order passed u/s 154 of the Act.

5. On the other hand, Ld. Sr. DR for the Revenue supported the assessment order.

6. We have heard Ld. Authorized Representatives of the parties and perused the material available on record and gone through the orders of the authorities below. Ld.CIT(A) has decided the issue by observing as under:-

6.4. “Thus, it is very clear that as per rule 128(9) of the I.T. Rules, 1962, for claiming FTC, the appellant is required to furnish Form No. 67 on or before the due date specified for furnishing the return of income under sub-section (1) of section 139 of the Act. For assessment year under consideration, AY 2021-22, the due date for filing of return u/s. 139(1) was 31.07.2021, which was extended to 31.12.2021, however, the appellant has furnished Form 67 on 03.08.2022 i.e., after the extended due date of filing the return of income u/s. 139(1) for A.Y. 2021-22. Here, the word used in the Rule 128(9) is "shall be furnished", and not "may be", therefore, it is mandatory for the assessee to furnish form 67 on or before the date specified u/s.

139(1) to claim relief u/s. 90/91 of the Act.

6.5. On bare perusal of the Rule 128(9), I find that there cannot be a second opinion that for claiming of relief u/s. 90/91 of the Act, the mandatory/statutory condition is that the Form 67 shall be filed before the due date specified u/s. 139(1) of the Act. Further, the power of c