Rupesh Kumar Vashist vs Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax

PER SANJAY AWASTHI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER:

This appeal arises from order dated 26.08.2025, passed u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereafter as “the Act”) by Ld. Addl./JCIT(Appeals)-2, Pune. In this case, the assessee claimed Foreign Tax Credit (FTC) u/s 90 of the Act at Rs.13,09,019/-. During the course of processing u/s 143(1) of the Act this claim was rejected. Thereafter, the assessee filed a rectification application u/s 154 of the Act, which again was rejected on the ground that Form-67 was filed after the due date of filing of ITR for AY 2020-21.

The assessee approached the first appellate authority where also he could not succeed on the basis of findings in pages 6 to 8 of the impugned order. Briefly, the said finding indicates that for claiming relief u/s 90/90A of the Act the assessee must file Form-67 on or before the due date of filing returned of income u/s 139(1) of the Act.

Further aggrieved, the assessee has approached the ITAT with grounds which challenge the impugned findings.

Before us, the Ld. AR argued that the delay in filing was on account of good and sufficient reasons. It was stated that the Form-67 was filed along with the relevant proof on 30.01.2021, i.e. before filing the revised tax return on 24.02.2021. It was also stated that the assessee had paid taxes due in South Africa and hence was eligible to claim FTC as per Article 22 of the India-South Africa (DTAA). It was argued that the beneficial treaty provisions would apply to the case of the assessee and for this purpose reliance was placed on the case of Duraiswamy Kumaraswamy [460 ITR 615 (Mad.)]. The Ld. AR read from the head notes from this case and pointed out that in paras 11, 12 & 13 of the same, the condition regarding filing of Form-67 before the due date of filing return of income was directory and not mandatory. It was pointed out that in the case before the Hon’ble Madras High Court the assessee had filed the FTC before passing of the final assessment order. The Ld. AR stated that his case was on better facts as compared to the Duraiswamy case (supra), since the said Form-67 was filed before filing of the revised return of income. The Ld. AR also relied on the number of cases of coordinate benches of ITAT.

The Ld. DR, on the other hand, relied on the orders of the authorities below.

We have carefully considered the rival submissions and have gone through the documents before us. We find that the interpretation of the law by the Hon’ble Madras High Court has considerable, persuasive value and even binding force because the beneficial DTAA provisions deserve to be applied over and above the provisions of the Act in caseone has to make a choice between the two. Accordingly, it deserves to be held that the provision for filing Form-67 in a specified manner is only directory and, in this case, the assessee had filed the requisite form before filing the revised returned of income. Accordingly, the assessee deserves to succeed.

In the result, appeal is allowed.