Sonakshi Sinha v CIT(A) - Taxpublishers.in

Case Laws Analysis
REFERRED Pr. CIT & Anr. v. Wipro Ltd. 2022 TaxPub(DT) 4593 (SC)
REFERRED 42 Hertz Software India (P) Ltd. v. Asstt. CIT 2022 TaxPub(DT) 1975 (Bang-Trib)
REFERRED Brinda Rama Krishna v. ITO 2022 TaxPub(DT) 1316 (Bang-Trib)

SUBSCRIBE FOR FULL CONTENT


The Tax Publishers2022 TaxPub(DT) 6587 (Mum-Trib) IN THE ITAT MUMBAI BENCH PRASHANT MAHARISHI , A.M. & SANDEEP SINGH KARHAIL, J.M. Sonakshi Sinha v. CIT(A) ITA No. 1704/Mum/2022 20 September, 2022 Assessee by : K. Gopal & Om Kandalkar , ARs Revenue by : Ajay Singh , DR ORDER *Prashant Maharishi, A.M.* This appeal is filed by assessee against appellate order passed by National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC) (learned Commissioner (A)) for assessment year 2018-19 on 27-4-2022 denying foreign tax credit of Rs. 2,921,327. 2. Assessee has raised following grounds:- (i) on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, Commissioner (Appeals), National faceless appeal Centre (NFAC) has erred by not considering the explanation , documents and disclosures made with regard to the claim of relief under section 90 of the income tax act 1961 (ii) the Commissioner (Appeals), National faceless appeal Centre has erred in passing an order and disallowing the claim of relief of foreign tax credit under section 90 of the income tax act, 1961 amounting to Rs. 2,921,327 on the same income of Rs. 14,610,080 offered in the same year, which has been doubly taxed in the United Kingdom and in India. (iii) On the facts and circumstances of the case, the Commissioner (Appeals), NFAC has not disputed the allowability of the foreign tax credit. He has only disallowed the credit on the ground that form 67 has not been filed on or before the due date of filing of return of income as per rule 128 (9) of the income tax rules, 1962. (iv) On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Commissioner (Appeals) NFAC failed to appreciate the fact that during the course of assessment proceedings, the learned assessing officer had erred in not issuing any show cause notice providing any opportunity to the appellant to explain as to why the disallowance of the credit should not be made and passed the assessment order disallowing the foreign tax credit of Rs. 2,921,327. (v) The Commissioner (Appeals) NFAC failed to appreciate the fact that the appellant on realizing the mistake of not filing form 67 for assessment year 2018-19, had filed the form on 20-1-2020 being later then the time limit specified under rule 128 (9) of the income tax rules, 1962. The act of late filing of form 67 clearly shows the intention of the appellant to rectify the procedural lapse that was made at the time of filing the return of income under section 139 (1) of the income tax act 1961 for claiming the foreign tax credit. SUBSCRIBE FOR FULL CONTENT

The Tax Publishers2022 TaxPub(DT) 6587 (Mum-Trib)

IN THE ITAT MUMBAI BENCH

PRASHANT MAHARISHI , A.M. & SANDEEP SINGH KARHAIL, J.M.

Sonakshi Sinha v. CIT(A)

ITA No. 1704/Mum/2022

20 September, 2022

Assessee by : K. Gopal & Om Kandalkar , ARs

Revenue by : Ajay Singh , DR

ORDER

Prashant Maharishi, A.M.

This appeal is filed by assessee against appellate order passed by National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC) (learned Commissioner (A)) for assessment year 2018-19 on 27-4-2022 denying foreign tax credit of Rs. 2,921,327.

2. Assessee has raised following grounds:-

(i) on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, Commissioner (Appeals), National faceless appeal Centre (NFAC) has erred by not considering the explanation , documents and disclosures made with regard to the claim of relief under section 90 of the income tax act 1961

(ii) the Commissioner (Appeals), National faceless appeal Centre has erred in passing an order and disallowing the claim of relief of foreign tax credit under section 90 of the income tax act, 1961 amounting to Rs. 2,921,327 on the same income of Rs. 14,610,080 offered in the same year, which has been doubly taxed in the United Kingdom and in India.

(iii) On the facts and circumstances of the case, the Commissioner (Appeals), NFAC has not disputed the allowability of the foreign tax credit. He has only disallowed the credit on the ground that form 67 has not been filed on or before the due date of filing of return of income as per rule 128 (9) of the income tax rules, 1962.

(iv) On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Commissioner (Appeals) NFAC failed to appreciate the fact that during the course of assessment proceedings, the learned assessing officer had erred in not issuing any show cause notice providing any opportunity to the appellant to explain as to why the disallowance of the credit should not be made and passed the assessment order disallowing the foreign tax credit of Rs. 2,921,327.

(v) The Commissioner (Appeals) NFAC failed to appreciate the fact that the appellant on realizing the mistake of not filing form 67 for assessment year 2018-19, had filed the form on 20-1-2020 being later then the time limit specified under rule 128 (9) of the income tax rules, 1962. The act of late filing of form 67 clearly shows the intention of the appellant to rectify the procedural lapse that was made at the time of filing the return of income under section 139 (1) of the income tax act 1961 for claiming the foreign tax credit.