2023 (3) TMI 102 - AT - Income Tax

Rectification petition u/s 154 seeking that the MAT credit was allowed after levying of surcharge and education cess - amount of MAT credits including surcharge and education cess were rejected by the ld. CIT(A) on the ground that while processing the return of income u/s 143(1) only those claims can be allowed, which are within the scope of section 143(1), the claim not made in the return of income, cannot be allowed - HELD THAT - When the matter was called on, none appeared on behalf of the appellant-assessee despite due service of notice of hearing. However, there was a petition seeking adjournment of hearing on the ground that the Counsel was busy. The assessee also filed a written submission. We had carefully gone through the order passed by the ld. CIT(A), which is a well speaking and reasoned order, we find that the order of the ld. CIT(A) is in consonance with the settled position of law and does not require any interference. Accordingly, the grounds of appeal filed by the assessee stand dismissed.

Summary

Issues:
Appeal against rejection of rectification petition u/s 154 for MAT credit calculation.

Analysis:
The appeal was filed against the rejection of a rectification petition u/s 154 regarding the calculation of MAT credit. The appellant, a company engaged in manufacturing, filed its return for the assessment year 2011-12, declaring total income. Following the processing of the return u/s 143(1), a demand was raised. Subsequently, a rectification petition u/s 154 was filed seeking MAT credit after the levy of surcharge and education cess, which was rejected. The appellant then appealed to the ld. CIT(A) arguing that MAT credit was allowed after calculating gross tax liability post surcharge and education cess. An additional ground was also raised regarding MAT credits without considering corresponding surcharge and education cess. However, the ld. CIT(A) rejected both grounds, citing a decision of the Hon'ble Calcutta High Court, stating that MAT credit from earlier years is to be set off against total tax liability, including surcharge and education cess. The ld. CIT(A) also rejected the request for MAT credits with surcharge and education cess, emphasizing that only claims within the scope of section 143(1) can be allowed.

The appellant, being dissatisfied, appealed to the ITAT Pune. However, during the hearing, despite due notice, no one appeared on behalf of the appellant. An adjournment was sought citing the Counsel's unavailability, along with a written submission. Upon reviewing the ld. CIT(A)'s order, the ITAT found it well-reasoned and in accordance with established law, leading to the dismissal of the grounds of appeal. Consequently, the appeal filed by the appellant was dismissed, affirming the decision of the ld. CIT(A).

In conclusion, the ITAT Pune upheld the decision of the ld. CIT(A) regarding the rejection of the rectification petition u/s 154 for MAT credit calculation, emphasizing the settled position of law and dismissing the appellant's grounds of appeal.