9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2025 (4) TMI 1356 - AT - Income TaxLevy of surcharge @37% instead of 10% applicable to the assessee as per the Relevance Finance Act - HELD THAT - Admittedly this issue now stands covered by the decision of the Hon ble Special Bench in the case of Aaradhya Jain Trust vs. Income Tax Officer 2025 (4) TMI 648 - ITAT MUMBAI wherein held that in the case of private discretionary trusts taxed at the maximum marginal rate the computation of surcharge must be based on the slab-wise surcharge structure prescribed in the Finance Act under Paragraph A of Part I of the First Schedule and not at a flat highest rate. Thus we hold that the assessee has rightly computed the surcharge @10% for A.Y.2021-22 and @25% for the A.Y.2022-23. Accordingly the grounds raised by the assessee are allowed. Accordingly the reference was answered in favour of the assessee.
The core legal questions considered in this judgment revolve around the correct rate of surcharge applicable to the assessee, an Association of Persons (AOP), for the assessment years 2021-22 and 2022-23. Specifically, the issues are:
For the first issue concerning the correct surcharge rate, the relevant legal framework includes the Income Tax Act, 1961, particularly Sections 164 and 167B, which provide for taxation of private discretionary trusts and AOPs at the maximum marginal rate. The Finance Act for the respective years prescribes slab-wise surcharge rates applicable to individuals, AOPs, and BOIs based on income thresholds (e.g., 10% for income between Rs.50 lakh and Rs.1 crore, 25% for income below Rs.3 crore, and 37% for income exceeding Rs.5 crore). The Court relied heavily on the decision of the Hon'ble Special Bench in the Aaradhya Jain Trust case, which directly addressed the surcharge computation issue for private discretionary trusts taxed at MMR. The Special Bench held that surcharge must be computed according to the slab-wise rates prescribed in the Finance Act and not at a flat highest rate regardless of income. This interpretation aligns with the statutory language and avoids disproportionate taxation. The Court's reasoning emphasized the distinction between tax levied at MMR and surcharge as a separate impost governed by the Finance Act's thresholds. The parenthetical phrase "including surcharge on income-tax, if any" in Section 2(29C) was interpreted as indicative rather than mandatory, meaning surcharge applies only if income exceeds specified thresholds. This interpretation is supported by precedents such as Commissioner of Income Tax, Kerala v. K. Srinivasan, which recognized surcharge as a distinct constitutional charge under Article 271, and Fuerst Day Lawson Ltd. v. Jindal Exports Ltd., which held bracketed phrases in statutes serve as supplementary explanations. The Court examined the competing arguments presented by the Departmental Representative (DR), who contended that the MMR definition in Section 2(29C) should be read to include the highest surcharge rate to prevent tax avoidance. The DR cited decisions such as Gosar Family Trust v. CIT and CIT v. CV Divakaran Family Trust to support uniform application of the highest surcharge. However, the Court found these authorities did not directly address the surcharge rate issue in the context of the Finance Act's graded structure and the statutory language of Section 2(29C). In applying the law to the facts, the Court noted that the assessee had correctly computed the surcharge at 10% for AY 2021-22 and 25% for AY 2022-23, consistent with the Finance Act's slab rates applicable to the declared income levels. The CPC's application of a flat 37% surcharge was contrary to the statutory framework and the Special Bench's authoritative ruling. The Court thus held that the surcharge must be computed on a slab-wise basis as per the Finance Act rather than at a flat highest rate. The Court also reviewed several Tribunal decisions supporting slab-based surcharge application, including ITO vs. Tayal Sales Corporation, Lintas Employees Professional Development Trust vs. ITO, Sriram Trust vs. ITO, and others, which reinforced the legal position favoring graded surcharge computation. Conversely, the Court found the Department's reliance on decisions advocating uniform highest surcharge application unpersuasive in light of the Special Bench's detailed statutory interpretation. The Court concluded that the surcharge levied by the CPC at 37% for both years was incorrect and that the assessee's computation of surcharge at 10% and 25% respectively was legally valid. The Court accordingly allowed the appeals filed by the assessee. Significant holdings from the judgment include the following verbatim excerpt from the Special Bench decision, which the Court adopted: "The surcharge under Section 2(29C) is conditional and must be computed in line with the graded rates under the Finance Act-not automatically at the highest rate. The parenthetical 'if any' reflects that surcharge is not always applicable-it is conditional on the taxpayer's income exceeding thresholds. Any other interpretation would result in disproportionate taxation and violate the principle against absurd outcomes." The Court established the core principle that for private discretionary trusts or AOPs taxed at the maximum marginal rate, surcharge must be applied according to the slab-wise structure prescribed in the Finance Act, not at a flat highest rate. This ensures consistency with the statutory framework and prevents arbitrary surcharge imposition. Final determinations on the issues are:
|
