Held that the assessee had filed his return on December 30, 2022, after uploading form on December 29, 2022 and the return was belated under section 139(4) of the Act. Prior to the Income-tax (27th Amendment) Rules, 2022, with retrospective effect from April 1, 2022, the requirement under rule 128(9) of the Income-tax Rules, 1962 was to furnish a statement in form 67 and the certificate or statement from the person responsible for deduction of tax at source specifying the nature of income and the amount of tax deducted thereon on or before the date for furnishing the return of income under section 139(1) of the Act. However, sub-rule (9) of rule 128 was substituted by the Income-tax (27th Amendment) Rules, 2022 ([2022 446 ITR (St.) 52), to provide that the statement in form 67 and the certificate or statement from the deductor shall be furnished on or before the end of the assessment year and the return shall be furnished within the time specified under sub-section (1) or sub-section (4) of section 139. The substitution of sub-rule (9) was given retrospective effect from April 1, 2022, namely, the assessment year commencing from April 1, 2022. The assessment year under consideration being 2022-23, it was governed by the substituted rule 128(9). The assessee furnished the return on December 30, 2022, which was a belated return under section 139(4) of the Act. Thus, the second condition of furnishing the return under section 139 was satisfied. The assessment year under consideration was 2022-23, which ended on March 31, 2023. The assessee furnished form 67 on December 29, 2022 which was well before the time. However, it could not be authentically proved that the relevant certificate or statement of the deductor as per clause (ii) of sub-rule (8) of rule 128 was also furnished with form 67 before March 31, 2023. The order is set aside and the matter restored to the Assessing Officer for examining whether or not the claim of the assessee of having furnished the certificate or statement with form 67 was correct. If it was found to be correct, the benefit of tax paid by the assessee in Kazakhstan was to be allowed because all other requisite conditions had been found fully satisfied.(AY.2022-23)