9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Calculation of Income-tax and Surcharge 2. Interpretation of "Maximum Marginal Rate" 3. Applicability of Section 154 for Rectification of Mistakes 4. Debatability of the Issue for Rectification Detailed Analysis: 1. Calculation of Income-tax and Surcharge The assessee, a trust, filed a return of income for the assessment year 1985-86, showing an income of Rs. 1,69,412 under the head 'business'. The assessment was completed under section 143(3) on 13-12-1985, computing the total income at Rs. 1,84,720. The Income-tax payable was calculated at 61.875%, amounting to Rs. 1,14,295. The assessee filed a petition under section 154, arguing that the Income-tax and surcharge should be Rs. 92,077 instead of Rs. 1,14,295. The Assessing Officer initially accepted this and passed an order on 15-4-1986. However, later, the Assessing Officer felt that a mistake had been made and initiated proceedings under section 154 to rectify this, reverting to the original calculation of Rs. 1,14,295. 2. Interpretation of "Maximum Marginal Rate" The core dispute revolves around the interpretation of the term "maximum marginal rate" as contained in Explanation 2 to section 164 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. According to the assessee, the maximum marginal rate should be calculated as Rs. 35,250 plus 55% of the amount exceeding Rs. 1,00,000, with a surcharge of 12.5%. The Assessing Officer and CIT (Appeals) held that the correct rate of tax as specified in section 161(1A) was 61.875%, including surcharge. The CIT (Appeals) further supported this view by referencing the definition in Explanation 2 to section 164, which specifies that the rate applicable to the highest slab of income should be considered without availing of the exemption. 3. Applicability of Section 154 for Rectification of Mistakes The assessee contended that the issue was debatable and thus not rectifiable under section 154. The Cochin Bench of the Tribunal in the case of V.S.V. Trust held that the maximum marginal rate of tax does not mean the highest rate of income-tax but is arrived at by taking the maximum rate of tax and surcharge thereon, duly marginalised for the difference in rate of tax prescribed for different slabs of income. However, the CIT (Appeals) and the Assessing Officer disagreed, citing judgments from the Calcutta and Madhya Pradesh High Courts, which held that the basic exemption was not available in such cases. 4. Debatability of the Issue for Rectification The Tribunal noted that there could be two opinions on the interpretation of "maximum marginal rate". A mistake apparent from the record must be an obvious and patent mistake and not something which can be established by a long-drawn process of reasoning on points on which there may be conceivably two opinions. The Tribunal cited the Supreme Court's decision in T.S. Balaram v. Volkart Bros., which held that a decision on a debatable point of law is not a mistake apparent from the record. Consequently, the Assessing Officer was not justified in passing the impugned order dated 27-4-1988 under section 154, and the appeal was allowed. Separate Judgments: - Accountant Member: Held that the issue was debatable and not rectifiable under section 154, setting aside the order dated 27-4-1988. - Judicial Member: Disagreed, stating that the issue was not debatable and that the Assessing Officer was justified in rectifying the mistake in the order dated 15-4-1986. - Third Member: Agreed with the Judicial Member, concluding that the ITO's order dated 27-4-1988 was justified and that the appeal should be dismissed. Final Order: In accordance with the majority opinion, the appeal filed by the assessee was dismissed.
|
