RAJAT RAJENDRAPRASAD RASTOGI,AHMEDABAD V. THE ITO, WARD-2 (INTL. TAXN.), AHMEDABAD

ITA 1783/AHD/2025

AI Insights

This case involves an appeal by Rajat Rajendraprasad Rastogi against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) -13, Ahmedabad, which dismissed his appeal due to delay in filing. The original dispute arose from the non-allowance of Foreign Tax Credit under sections 90/90(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for taxes paid in Australia. The assessee had claimed a credit of Rs. 11,51,500 for taxes paid on income earned from Australia, which was not initially allowed, leading to a demand of Rs. 14,32,900. The Tribunal found that the delay in filing the appeal was not deliberate and thus condoned it, remanding the case for re-evaluation of the Foreign Tax Credit claim.

• Counselvise Citation: [2026] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 830049 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 month(s) 23 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 16-01-2026
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: Ahmedabad
• Assessment Year: misc
• Appeal Filed On: 24-09-2025
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: PRATEEK SHARMA
• Assessee Lawyers: D.K. PARIKH
• Keywords: Set aside; Reasonable cause; Salary income; Principle of natural justice; Double taxation relief
• Section: 154

Judgement Text

"THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AHMEDABAD “D” BENCH Before Dr. BRR Kumar, Vice President And Ms. Suchitra Kamble, Judicial Member Rajat Rajendraprasad Rastogi, A/147, Samatva Bunglow Shela Village, Ahmedabad Gujarat-380058 PAN: AKVPR8024L (Appellant) Vs The ITO, Ward-2, (Intl. Taxation), Navjivan Building, Ashram Road, Ahmedabad-380014 (Respondent) Assessee by: Shri D.K. Parikh, A.R. Revenue by: Shri Prateek Sharma, Sr. D.R. Date of hearing : 16-12-2025 Date of pronouncement : 16-01-2026 आदेश/ORDER Per Suchitra Kamble, Judicial Member: This is an appeal filed against the order dated 22-07- 2025 passed by CIT(A), Ahmedabad-13 for assessment year 2019-20. 2. The grounds of appeal are as under:- “1. The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) -13, AHMEDABAD has erred both in law and on facts in not condoning the delay and thereby dismissing the appeal filed against order u/s 154 of the Act in which the ground of Foreign Tax Credit u/s 90/90(2) of the IT Act was not given was not allowed. 2. On the facts and circumstances of the appellants case, considering the reasonable cause and legal position, the delay in filing appeal ought to have been condoned and appeal having ITA No. 1783/Ahd/2025 Assessment Year 2019-20 Printed from counselvise.com I.T.A No. 1783/Ahd/2025 Rajat Rajendraprasad Rastogi, A.Y. 2019-20 2 meritorious ground in the appeal, the same ought to have been decided on merits. It be so held now. 3. The ld CIT(Appeals) also erred both in law and on facts in relying on various decisions as against the Apex Court judgments as the appellant litigating could not have gained by deliberately not filing appeal in time. It be so held now and order passed by ld CIT(A) be set aside to grant the relief sought and to decide the ground on merits. 4. On the facts and circumstances of the appellants case, since Form No: 67 was later filed and was available when the appeal was heard, the credit of tax paid u/s 90/90(2) ought to have been granted by rectifying the mistake as powers of appellate authority are co-terminus with that of Assessing Officer. It be so directed now. 5. The Id CIT(APPEALS) ought to have allowed the grounds raised in toto and cancelled the demand by directing to give credit of FTC of Rs. 11,51,500/- as prayed for. 6. The appellant craves leave to add, alter, modify or delete any of the grounds at the time of hearing.” 3. The assessee is an individual and derived salary income from JP Morgan Services India Pvt. Ltd. which was received in India for the period April, 2018 to August, 2018. The assessee is also having source of income from Autralia, income from salary AUD $ 78601/- from Tyoto Finance for the period October, 2018 to March, 2019. The assessee filed return u/s. 139(1) showing gross total income of Rs. 49,68,411/- for assessment year 2019- 20 dated 02-08-2019 including income earned in Australia. The assessee had shown income from Australia and claimed total taxable royalty 90/91 i.e. deduction of tax which was already paid in Australia amounting to Rs. 11,51,500/-. The assessee received an intimation order u/s. 143(1) from the Department dated 23-03-2010 in which the Double Taxation Relief u/s. 90/91 was not allowed by the CPC and the revenue raised demand amounting to Rs. 14,32,900/-. Later on, the assessee filed Form 67 on 08-04-2021 as per rule 128 of the Act. after Printed from counselvise.com I.T.A No. 1783/Ahd/2025 Rajat Rajendraprasad Rastogi, A.Y. 2019-20 3 receiving the intimation order, the assessee filed rectification request dated 08-04-2021 and rectification was processed with demand due dated 29th April, 2021. The assessee again filed rectification request u/s. 154 dated 22nd March, 2022 and the said rectification was processed with demand due dated 19th August, 2024. Since the Assessing Officer has not granted any relief u/s. 90/91 amounting Rs. 11,51,500/-, the assessee filed appeal before the CIT(A). The CIT(A) dismissed the appeal of the assessee. 4. The ld. A.R. submitted that the CIT(A) dismissed the appeal on the ground that of delay thereby calculating the delay from 8- 4-2024 but has not taken cognizance that the request of assessee for rectification u/s. 154 dated 8th April, 2021 and 22nd March, 2022 was processed on 29th April, 2021 dated 19th August, 2024 respectively. Therefore, there was no deliberate delay before the CIT(A). Thus, the ld. A.R. submitted that the Assessing Officer be directed to give the credit of tax paid u/s. 90/91 of the Act relating to the tax paid in Australia. 5. The ld. D.R. relied upon the assessment order and the order of the CIT(A). 6. We have heard both the parties and perused all the material available on record. It is pertinent to note that the assessee was not staying in India continuously and through help of tax consultant only perusing the rectification filed on 27-05-2022. The CIT(A) was not right in not taking cognizance of the genuine reason of the assessee in filing the belated appeal before the CIT(A). Therefore, it will be appropriate to condone the delay in filing the appeal before Printed from counselvise.com I.T.A No. 1783/Ahd/2025 Rajat Rajendraprasad Rastogi, A.Y. 2019-20 4 the CIT(A). Since the issue is related to tax paid in Australia and the credit towards the same to the assessee as per Income Tax Act, 1961. Therefore, it will be appropriate to remand back this matter to the file of the Assessing Officer for proper verification of the issue and adjudicate the same as per Income Tax Law. Needless to say, the assessee be given opportunity of hearing by following principles of natural justice. 7. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purpose. Order pronounced in the open court on 16-01-2026 Sd/- Sd/- (Dr. BRR Kumar) (Suchitra Kamble) Vice President Judicial Member Ahmedabad : Dated 16/01/2026 a.k. आदेश क\u0006 \u0007\bत ल प अ\u000fे षत / Copy of Order Forwarded to:- 1. Assessee 2. Revenue 3. Concerned CIT 4. CIT (A) 5. DR, ITAT, Ahmedabad 6. Guard file. By order/आदेश से, उप/सहायक पंजीकार आयकर अपील\u0012य अ\u0013धकरण, अहमदाबाद Printed from counselvise.com "