2024 (6) TMI 1406 - AT - Income Tax

Surcharge applicable to the case of the assessee in terms of 2(29C) r/w section 164/167B - Liability to pay tax at maximum marginal rate as per provisions of Section 167B - as argued even if the tax rate is chargeable at a maximum rate, the applicable surcharge rate should be applied as specified in the Finance Act depending upon the net taxable income and it is incorrect to hold that the rate of surcharge should also be levied at maximum rate, when the tax is leviable at maximum marginal rate - HELD THAT - Proviso to section 2 of the Finance Act, says that in respect of any income chargeable to tax under section 115A, 115AB, 115AC, 115ACA, 115AD, 115BA, 115BB, 115BBA, 115BBC, 115BBF, 115BBG, 115BBH, 115BBI, 115E, 115JB or 115JC of the Income Tax Act, the amount of income tax computed under this sub-section shall be increased by a surcharge, for the purpose of the Union, calculated, in the case of association of persons, having a total income exceeding Rs. 50 lakh, but not exceeding Rs. 1 crore @10% of such income tax etc. It does not contemplate surcharge at any rate on the income less than Rs. 50 lakhs. In the case of ITO vs. Tayal Sales Corporation 2001 (2) TMI 877 - ITAT HYDERABAD Tribunal took the view that under section 2(29C) of the Act, maximum marginal rate means, the rate of income tax including surcharge on income tax, if any applicable in relation to the highest slab of in the case of an individual and it does not say that the maximum marginal rate shall include surcharge on income tax irrespective of the highest slab of income, but it has a relationship with the highest slab of income. Thus we direct that no surcharge could be levied on the income tax, if the income of the assessee is less than Rs. 50 lakhs.

Summary

Issues:
1. Levy of surcharge on income tax by CPC during processing of return under section 143(1) of the Income Tax Act.
2. Dismissal of appeal by CIT(A) challenging the levy of surcharge.
3. Contention regarding the applicable surcharge rate based on net taxable income.
4. Interpretation of provisions of section 2(29C) read with section 164/167B of the Act and relevant Finance Act.
5. Comparison with previous Tribunal decision in the case of ITO vs. Tayal Sales Corporation.
6. Resolution of whether surcharge is applicable to the assessee when income is less than Rs. 50 lakhs.
7. Analysis of the Finance Act provisions regarding surcharge on specific types of income.
8. Decision on the applicability of surcharge based on the interpretation of maximum marginal rate.

Analysis:
The judgment pertains to the appeal filed by the assessee, a registered private Trust, against the levy of surcharge on income tax by CPC during the processing of returns for assessment years 2021-22, 2022-23, and 2023-24. The CIT(A) dismissed the appeal, upholding the surcharge levy based on the Finance Act provisions. The assessee contended that the surcharge rate should be applied based on net taxable income, not uniformly at the maximum rate. The AR referred to relevant sections of the Act and the Finance Act, along with a previous Tribunal decision in a similar case.

The key issue revolved around the interpretation of section 2(29C) in conjunction with section 164/167B of the Act and the Finance Act. The Tribunal analyzed the provisions and the Finance Act's stipulations regarding surcharge on specific types of income. The Tribunal referred to the decision in the case of ITO vs. Tayal Sales Corporation, emphasizing that the maximum marginal rate should be linked to the highest slab of income, not uniformly applied irrespective of income level.

The Tribunal resolved that surcharge should not be levied on income tax when the assessee's income is less than Rs. 50 lakhs, as per the interpretation of section 2(29C) and relevant Finance Act provisions. The judgment emphasized the relationship between the maximum marginal rate and the highest slab of income to determine the applicability of surcharge. Consequently, the Tribunal allowed the grounds of appeal, directing that no surcharge could be imposed on income tax when the income is below the specified threshold.

In conclusion, the Tribunal allowed all appeals, overturning the CIT(A)'s decision and ruling in favor of the assessee based on the interpretation of the relevant provisions of the Act and the Finance Act. The judgment clarified the criteria for surcharge levy based on income levels and upheld the principle that surcharge should be applied in relation to the highest slab of income, not uniformly at the maximum rate.