Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee filed an income tax return claiming benefits under the Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement (DTAA) for foreign income. However, the Centralised Processing Centre (CPC) processed the return at normal rates, ignoring the DTAA claim. The CIT(A) dismissed the assessee's subsequent appeal, directing them to seek rectification under Section 154 instead of addressing the merits.
Held
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) erred by not adjudicating the DTAA claim on its merits, despite relevant documents being on record. It held that the matter required re-examination and remanded the entire issue back to the CIT(A) to examine the DTAA claim in accordance with law and provide relief after a proper hearing.
Key Issues
Whether the CIT(A) was justified in dismissing the appeal and directing the assessee to pursue rectification under Section 154 instead of deciding the DTAA claim on merits.
Sections Cited
143(1), 154
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, COCHIN BENCH
Before: SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO, AM & SHRI SONJOY SARMA, JM
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.
Brief facts of the case are that the assessee filed its return of income for the Assessment Year 2024–25 declaring total income of 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.
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.
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.
Suresh Krishnamoorthy 5. The ld. DR did not raise any serious objection to the prayer of the assessee for restoration of the matter.
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.