RAJIV KUMAR MISHRA,INDIA vs. ITO, WARD-5(3)(3), BENGALURU

PDF · subscribers
ITA 2153/BANG/2026Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore12 October 2026AY 2020-213 pages

In favour of the Revenue: the assessee's appeal was dismissed. From the AI summary of this appeal.

AI SummaryDismissed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal upheld the order of the learned CIT(A). Regarding the condonation of delay, the Tribunal did not agree with the assessee's reason that the issue required thorough analysis and consultation with tax professionals, stating that the delay was not justified. The Tribunal also noted that Form 67 was not available to the CPC at the time of processing the return. Consequently, the Tribunal found no infirmity in the CIT(A)'s decision to dismiss the appeal for delay and also on merits. The grounds raised by the assessee were dismissed. The Tribunal did not expressly leave any issue undecided.

What were the facts?

The assessee, Rajiv Kumar Mishra, a resident individual and Infosys Ltd. employee, filed his return for AY 2020-21 declaring Rs. 25,00,250 and claiming foreign tax credit (FTC) of Rs. 2,53,320. However, Form 67 was not filed with the return. The return was processed under section 143(1), denying the FTC. The assessee filed Form 67 later and a rectification petition before CPC, which was rejected as Form 67 was not filed within the stipulated time under section 139(1). The assessee appealed to the CIT(A) with a delay of over 3 years, citing complexity in cross-border taxation. The CIT(A) dismissed the appeal for delay and also on merits, upholding the CPC's order. The assessee appealed to the ITAT.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the Tribunal had to decide on the condonation of delay in filing the appeal before the learned CIT(A)? (Mixed question of law and fact, concerning principles of condonation of delay). 2. Whether the Tribunal had to decide on the allowability of foreign tax credit of Rs. 2,53,320/-? (Question of law, concerning the eligibility for FTC under sections 90/90A read with Rule 128). Assessee's contentions: The assessee argued that a liberal approach should be adopted for condoning the delay, as it was not intentional or deliberate, and was caused by the complexity of cross-border taxation requiring professional analysis. The assessee prayed for the allowance of foreign tax credit. Revenue's contentions: The learned DR relied on the orders of the lower authorities.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 90,Section 90A,Section 139(1),Section 143(1),Section 154

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, BANGALORE BENCHES, BANGALORE

Before: BALAKRISHNAN S & SHRI SOUNDARARAJAN K.

For Respondent: Shri. Pradeep S - Addl. CIT
Pronounced: 12.10.2026

PER BALAKRISHNAN S, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER: This appeal is filed by the Assessee against the order of Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (A) vide DIN: ITBA/APL/S/250/2025-26/1087888901(1) dated 25-Mar- 2026 for the Assessment Year 2020-21, arising out of the Order passed under section 154 of the Act, dated 28.07.2022.

2.

Briefly stated, the facts of the case are assessee being a resident individual and salaried employee of Infosys Ltd., filed his return of income for the Assessment Year

ITA 2153/BANG/2026 RAJIV KUMAR MISHRA

2020-21 declaring an amount of Rs.25,00,250/-. The assessee also claimed foreign tax credit (FTC) of Rs.2,53,320/- under section 90/90A of the Act for the tax paid. However, the assessee has not filed Form 67 as prescribed under Rule 128 of the Income Tax Rules. The return was summarily processed under section 143(1) of the Act dt 25.11.2021, denying the foreign tax credit claimed by the assessee. Assessee thereafter filed a rectification petition before the CPC. In the meantime, assessee also filed Form 67 on 19.12.2021. The CPC rejected the rectification request filed by the assessee stating that Form 67 was not filed along with return of income on or before the time stipulated u/s139(1) of the Act.

3.

Being aggrieved by the Order of the CPC u/s 154 of the Act dt 14.09.2022 assessee filed appeal before the learned CIT(A) on 23.11.2025, with a delay of more than 3 years. In the petition seeking condonation of delay before the learned CIT(A), assessee has stated that due to complexity involved in the cross-border taxation which required thorough analysis by tax professionals, the assessee could not file the appeal in time. The learned CIT(A) not being satisfied with the reasons for delay advanced by the assessee, did not condone the delay and dismissed the appeal. Further, the learned CIT(A) also adjudicated the case on merits upholding the order of CPC u/s 154 of the Act, thereby dismissing the appeal of the assessee on both the grounds.

4.

Being aggrieved by the Order of the learned CIT(A), assessee is in appeal before us by raising various grounds. The only issue emanating from the grounds is with respect to foreign tax credit amounting to Rs.2,53,320/-. The assessee has also challenged the decision of the learned CIT(A) in not condoning the delay in filing the appeal before him. The learned AR submitted that the assessee was not aware of the procedures which has caused the delay in filing the appeal before the learned CIT(A). He also submitted that liberal approach should be adopted while dealing with condoning the delay which is not intentional or deliberate on the part of the assessee. He therefore prayed that the foreign tax credit of Rs.2,53,320/- shall be allowed.

5.

Per contra, the learned DR relied on the Order of the lower authorities.

ITA 2153/BANG/2026 RAJIV KUMAR MISHRA

6.

We have heard the rival contentions and perused the material available on record. From the submissions made by the learned AR, we notice that the Order under section 154 of the Act was passed on 14.09.2022 by the CPC. However, the assessee has filed appeal before the learned CIT(A) on 23.11.2025 by stating in the petition for condonation of delay that the assessee required thorough analysis and consultation with the tax professional against the complexities involved in the cross-border taxation and therefore the delay was inevitable. We do not agree with the cause advanced by the assessee praying for condonation of delay citing that the issue required thorough analysis and consultation with the tax professional. Moreover, the Form 67 was not available before CPC at time of processing the return of income. In the light of above discussion, we, therefore have no hesitation in upholding the order of learned CIT(A) as there is no infirmity. Thus, the grounds raised by the assessee are dismissed.

7.

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed.

Pronounced in the open court on the date mentioned on the caption page.

Sd/- Sd/- SOUNDARARAJAN K BALAKRISHNAN S ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Bangalore Dated: 12.10.2026 /NS*/

Copy to: 1. Appellants 2. Respondent 3. CIT 4. CIT(A) 5. DR 6. Guard file By order

Assistant Registrar, ITAT, Bangalore. P G Digitally signed by P G RAJANI RAJANI Date: 2026.10.21 3 11:55:56 +05'30'

More judgments on Section 90

All 1,075 judgments and leading authorities on Section 90 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →