RAGHAVA GUPTA VALIVETI,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 5(3)(4), BANGALORE

ITA 2744/BANG/2025Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore28 September 2026AY 2019-204 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What were the facts?

The assessee, Shri Raghava Gupta Valiveti, an individual, is appealing against an order of the NFAC, Delhi for Assessment Year 2019-20. During the year, the assessee was employed by Amazon Development Centre Inc. and earned salary income from Amazon India and Amazon US, along with interest income from Indian and US bank accounts. The assessee filed a return declaring global income and claimed foreign tax credit (FTC) under Section 90 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, read with Article 25 of the India-USA DTAA, for taxes paid in the USA. The assessee also filed Form 67 and necessary proofs of US tax payment. The CPC processed the return and denied the FTC. An application for rectification under Section 154 was filed but remained undisposed. The assessee then filed an appeal before the CIT(A) with a delay of 1282 days, which was dismissed for insufficient cause. The present appeal is against this dismissal.

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the assessee had filed his return of income and Form 67 well before the due dates and had completed the necessary formalities for claiming FTC. The Tribunal noted that the CPC denied the FTC without any prior communication to the assessee, which was contrary to the principles of natural justice. The Tribunal referred to several of its own prior decisions in cases like Ms. Brinda Ramakrishna vs. ITO, Vinoth Kumar Laxmipathi vs. CIT(A), and M/s. 42 Hertz Software India Pvt. Ltd. vs. ACIT, where similar directions were issued to grant FTC under Section 90. Therefore, the Tribunal decided to condone the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) and set aside the order of the CIT(A). The issue of granting the necessary deduction for FTC was remitted to the file of the Joint Assessing Officer (JAO) for necessary action.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) is to be condoned, considering the pending rectification application before the CPC? (Question of mixed law and fact, concerning Section 246A and Section 154 of the Income Tax Act, 1961). Assessee's contention: The assessee argued that the delay was due to the pending rectification application filed before the CPC. The assessee had complied with all formalities for claiming FTC, including filing Form 67 and providing proofs of US tax payment. The denial of FTC by the CPC without prior notice was incorrect and against natural justice. The assessee relied on orders of the Coordinate Bench of the Tribunal. Revenue's contention: The revenue argued that the delay was abnormal and the CIT(A) had correctly dismissed the appeal on this ground.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 90,Section 154,Section 246A,Section 139(1)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, BANGALORE BENCHES, BANGALORE

Before: SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, VICE – & SHRI SOUNDARARAJAN K.

PER SHRI SOUNDARARAJAN K., JUDICIAL MEMBER:

This is an appeal filed by the assessee challenging the order of the NFAC, Delhi dated 24/09/2025 in respect of the A.Y. 2019-20. 2. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee is an individual and was employed in Amazon Development Centre Inc. during the A.Y. 2019-20. The assessee had earned salary income from the Amazon India as well as 1 Shri Raghava Gupta Valiveti

Amazon US and also earned

The order continues below.

Read the full judgment

A free account opens 10 full judgments a month. Re-reading one you have already opened does not count again.

Create a free accountSign in

See plans and prices

The summary, the parties, the sections and the citations above are open to everyone and always will be. Only the text of the order and the PDF are metered.

More judgments on Section 90

All 1,055 judgments and leading authorities on Section 90 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →