"IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL COCHIN BENCH BEFORE SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO, AM AND SHRI SONJOY SARMA, JM ITA Nos. 321/Coch/2025 Assessment Years: 2024-25 Suresh Krishnamoorthy .......... Appellant CRRA E-7A, Souparnika, Chalakuzhy E Lane Pattom Palace SO Thiruvananthapuram [PAN: ASFPK1045C] vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 2, Alappuzha .......... Respondent Appellant by: Shri. Veeramani, CA Respondent by: Smt. Leena Lal Snr. AR. Date of Hearing: 05 .06.2025 Date of Pronouncement: 13.06.2025 O R D E R Per Sonjoy Sarma: This appeal is filed by the assessee against the order dated 29.03.2025 by the CIT, Appeal Addl/JCIT (A)-2, Coimbatore (hereinafter referred to as ‘CIT(A)’] for the assessment year 2024– 25. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee filed its return of income for the Assessment Year 2024–25 declaring total income of 2 ITA No. 321/Coch/2025 Suresh Krishnamoorthy Rs.10,13,41,690/- which included income from foreign sources amounting to Rs.2,50,29,867/- taxable at a special rate under the Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement (DTAA). The assessee filed return of income of Rs.10,13,42,690/- which included income of Rs250,29,867/- taxable at special rats as per DTAA and duly filed Form 67 on 11.11.2024 in compliance with Rule 128 of the Income Tax Rules, 1962, before the issuance of intimation under Section 143(1) of the Act. However, the Centralised Processing Centre (CPC) processed the return and raised a demand, treating the above income at normal rates of taxation, without considering the special DTAA rate claimed by the assessee. 3. Aggrieved by the intimation, the assessee filed an appeal before the CIT(A). However, the CIT(A) dismissed the appeal on the ground that the assessee had not filed a rectification application under Section 154 before the CPC and directed the assessee to pursue rectification under that provision. 4. The assessee has preferred the present appeal before the Tribunal contending that the CIT(A) ought to have adjudicated the matter on merits, especially when all the documents were available on record. The Form 67 was duly filed and the return correctly claimed the benefit under the DTAA. Directing the assessee to file a rectification application instead of granting relief under appellate jurisdiction was incorrect. 3 ITA No. 321/Coch/2025 Suresh Krishnamoorthy 5. The ld. DR did not raise any serious objection to the prayer of the assessee for restoration of the matter. 6. We, after hearing both parties and on perusal of the records, the Tribunal note that the assessee had declared foreign income taxable at special rates under the DTAA and had filed Form 67 before the issuance of the intimation. The CPC did not consider the DTAA claim and taxed the amount at normal rates. The CIT(A) also failed to examine the merits, simply dismissing the appeal by directing the assessee to file a Section 154 rectification application. We, in the interest of justice, hold that the matter requires re- examination by the CIT(A). Accordingly, the entire issue is remanded to the file of the CIT(A) with a direction to examine the DTAA claim in accordance with law and allow relief to the assessee after granting due opportunity of being heard. 7. In view of the above, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open court on 13th June, 2025. Sd/- Sd/- (INTURI RAMA RAO) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER (SANJOY SARMA) JUDICIAL MEMBER Cochin, Dated: 13th June, 2025 4 ITA No. 321/Coch/2025 Suresh Krishnamoorthy Copy to: 1. The Appellant 2. The Respondent 3. The Pr. CIT concerned 4. The Sr. DR, ITAT, Cochin 5. Guard File Assistant Registrar ITAT, Cochin "