POOJA NAGARAJA,BENGALURU V. ITO WARD - 7(2)(5), BENGALURU

ITA 2338/BANG/2025

AI Insights

Ms. Pooja Nagaraja, the Assessee, appealed against the order of the Additional Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-7, Mumbai, which had dismissed her earlier appeal as not admitted due to a significant delay. The delay was attributed to the Assessee's medical emergencies related to an extensive IVF treatment, which she claimed prevented her from filing the appeal in a timely manner. The core issue in the appeal was the denial of a Foreign Tax Credit claimed under section 91 of the Income Tax Act, which was initially processed under section 143(1) and later upheld in a rectification order under section 154. The Tribunal, after considering the medical documents and the circumstances presented, decided to remand the case back to the Assessing Officer for a detailed examination of the claim.

• Counselvise Citation: [2026] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 831290 (ITAT-BANGALORE)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 month(s) 3 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 20-01-2026
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Assessment Year: misc
• Appeal Filed On: 17-10-2025
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: REVENUE; REVENUE; GANESH R GHALE
• Assessee Lawyers: DEEPAK GUNASHEKAR
• Keywords: Salary income; Rectification of order
• Section: 154; 90

Judgement Text

"IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘SMC’ BENCH: BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, VICE – PRESIDENT ITA No. 2338/Bang/2025 Assessment Year : 2020-21 Ms. Pooja Nagaraja, No. 562, 16th Main, Manjunathnagar, Rajajinagar, Bengaluru, Karnataka – 560 010. PAN: CJSPP5516M Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-7[2][5], Bengaluru. APPELLANT RESPONDENT Assessee by : Shri Deepak Gunashekar, CA Revenue by : Shri Ganesh R Ghale - Advocate, Standing Counsel for Revenue Date of Hearing : 16-12-2025 Date of Pronouncement : 20-01-2026 ORDER PER PRASHANT MAHARISHI, VICE – PRESIDENT 1. ITA No 2338/Bang/2025 is filed by Ms. Pooja Nagaraja (the Assessee /Appellant) against the Appellate Order passed by the Additional Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-7, Mumbai (the Ld. CIT(A)) for Assessment Year 2020-21 dated 06.08.2025 wherein the Appeal filed by the Assessee against the rectification order passed u/s. 154 of the Income Tax Act dated 22.08.2022 of the Central Processing Centre, Bangalore was dismissed as not admitted. 2. The Assessee aggrieved with the Appellate Order and is in appeal before us. Printed from counselvise.com ITA No. 2338/Bang/2025 Page 2 of 4 3. We have heard the Ld. Authorized Representative Shri Deepak Gunashekar, CA as well as Shri Ganesh R Ghale, Advocate, Standing Counsel for Revenue. 4. Brief facts of the case show that the Assessee is an individual who filed return of income on 18.09.2020 at a total income of Rs. 14,51,720/-. The Assessee has claimed relief u/s. 91 of the Act amounting to Rs. 2,31,534/- on her salary income received from Canada. The Central Processing Centre processed the return u/s. 143(1) of the Act on 25.11.2021 wherein the relief claimed by the Assessee was disallowed due to the reason that in Form No. 67 filed by the Assessee, the Assessee claimed Foreign Tax Credit u/s. 91 of the Act instead of section 90 of the Act. 5. The Assessee filed a rectification application on 25.11.2011. However, on 22.08.2022 without making any changes, the CPC issued the same intimation on 22.08.2022. 6. The Assessee filed Appeal on 28.05.2025. Therefore, naturally it was delayed by 615 days. The Assessee stated that Assessee was not aware of the legal process of filing of the Appeal and therefore preferred a condonation petition before the Assessing Officer. Later on, the Assessee contacted a tax professional who advised her to file Appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) stating in application the reasons for delay. Assessee submitted that she was also under medical emergency. Therefore, the Assessee filed an Appeal. It was stated that the demand of Rs. 2,92,990/- including interest of Rs. 1,57,374/- was levied on the Assessee and on pressing of the same, the Assessee filed an Appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). 7. The Ld. CIT(A) held that the delay of 615 days is not explained and hence not condoned. Against this, the Assessee is in appeal before us. Printed from counselvise.com ITA No. 2338/Bang/2025 Page 3 of 4 8. It was stated that Assessee departed Canada on 05.09.2019 to take up full time employment in Canada and remained in Canada till August 2020. Thus, for Assessment Year 2020-21 the Appellant was eligible for a Foreign Tax Credit of Rs. 2,31,534/- which was claimed by the Assessee in the return of income. The claim was denied by rejecting the rectification application on 22.08.2022. However, the Appeal was filed on 28.05.2024. 9. The claim of the Assessee is that the Assessee was undergoing an extensive IVF treatment process which involved repeated medical procedures, prolonged hormonal therapy, bed rest and frequent hospitalization at regular intervals. This treatment continued for an extended period and resulted in the birth of her child on 11.10.2023. Because of this, it was submitted that the Assessee could not file Appeal in time. After her delivery and recovering after, she filed this Appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) on 28.05.2024. Even Form no. 35 says that the Assessee also approached the Ld. Assessing Officer for condonation of delay. In view of the above facts, we do not find any reason to uphold the order of Ld. CIT(A) which says that delay is not for a sufficient cause. Medical history is also produced before us which is running into several pages. In view of this, we find that delay in filing of the Appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) was for sufficient cause. 10. As the issue involved in this Appeal is regarding Foreign Tax Credit for which Form no. 67 is admittedly on record. Merely there is a mistake in claiming the relief u/s. 91 of the act instead of section 90 of the Act. In view of the above facts, we restore the whole issue back to the file of the Ld. Assessing Officer to examine Form No. 67 and grant the tax credit, if found, in accordance with the Law. 11. Accordingly, appeal of the Assessee is allowed as indicated above. Printed from counselvise.com ITA No. 2338/Bang/2025 Page 4 of 4 Order pronounced in the open court on 20th January 2026. Sd/- (PRASHANT MAHARISHI) VICE-PRESIDENT Bangalore, Dated, the 20th January 2026. *TNTS* Copy to: 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. CIT 4. DR, ITAT, Bangalore 5. CIT(A) By order Assistant Registrar, ITAT, Bangalore Printed from counselvise.com "