2025 (4) TMI 1478 - AT - Income Tax

Surcharge applicable on income as clubbed with highest rate of income tax against the provisions given in chapter ii 1st Schedule part 1 of Finance Act 2022 - CIT(A) NFAC erred in law to invoke the provision section 164 r.w.s 2(29C) HELD THAT - As surcharge @ 10% only should have been applied as the income was below Rs. 1 Crore. For A.Y. as the total income was only Rs. 24, 78, 407 therefore no surcharge was leviable. Hence the appeals are allowed for both the assessment years and the AO is directed to apply the surcharge @10% for A.Y. 2022-23 as the income did not exceed Rs. 1.0 Crore and apply NIL surcharge for A.Y. 2023-24 as the income did not exceed Rs. 50, 000/-. Hence Ground Nos. 1 2 and 3 are allowed.

1. ISSUES PRESENTED and CONSIDERED

The core legal questions considered by the Tribunal in these appeals pertain to the following:

(a) Whether the surcharge applicable on the assessee's income was correctly computed and applied by the Assessing Officer and upheld by the CIT(A), particularly with reference to the provisions contained in Chapter II, First Schedule Part I of the Finance Act for the relevant assessment years.

(b) Whether the invocation of provisions under section 164 read with section 2(29C) of the Income Tax Act was justified in the facts of the case, given the nature of the assessee as a private specific family trust with known beneficiaries.

(d) Ancillary issues concerning the correctness of the tax computation, including the calculation of cess and surcharge, and the applicability of the highest marginal tax rate to the assessee's income.

2. ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS

Issue (a): Correctness of Surcharge Computation and Application

Relevant legal framework and precedents: The Finance Act, 2022 and 2023, specifically Chapter II, First Schedule Part I, prescribe the rates of surcharge applicable on income tax depending on the quantum of income. The surcharge rates vary with income slabs, and the applicability of the highest surcharge rate is contingent on the income exceeding certain thresholds.

Court's interpretation and reasoning: The Tribunal examined the income of the assessee, which was Rs. 24,78,407 for AY 2022-23 and below Rs. 50,000 for AY 2023-24. The Assessing Officer and the CIT(A) had applied a surcharge rate of 37% (highest marginal rate) on the income, which was challenged by the assessee on the ground that the income did not exceed the threshold for such surcharge, and therefore, surcharge should have been either 10% or NIL as per the Finance Act.

Key evidence and findings: The CPC had calculated surcharge at Rs. 2,75,102 for AY 2022-23 and applied cess in excess by Rs. 11,004, along with interest of Rs. 25,795. The assessee contended that since the income did not exceed Rs. 1 crore, the surcharge should not exceed 10%, and for AY 2023-24, with income below Rs. 50,000, no surcharge was applicable.

Application of law to facts: The Tribunal found that the surcharge was incorrectly computed at the highest rate as the income thresholds for such surcharge were not met. The Finance Act clearly delineates surcharge rates based on income slabs, and the assessee's income fell below the slabs attracting higher surcharge rates.

Treatment of competing arguments: The Department relied on the CIT(A)'s order affirming the surcharge at the highest rate, while the assessee argued for correct application as per the Finance Act. The Tribunal accepted the assessee's argument, noting the statutory provisions and income thresholds.

Conclusions: The Tribunal held that surcharge @ 10% was applicable for AY 2022-23 as the income was below Rs. 1 crore, and NIL surcharge was applicable for AY 2023-24 as the income was below Rs. 50,000. The orders of the Assessing Officer and CIT(A) on this point were set aside.

Issue (b): Invocation of Section 164 read with Section 2(29C) of the Income Tax Act

Relevant legal framework and precedents: Section 164 deals with the taxation of certain trusts and assesses the income of trusts where beneficiaries are not ascertainable or where the trust is discretionary. Section 2(29C) defines a "specific trust" where beneficiaries and their shares are known.

Court's interpretation and reasoning: The assessee is a private specific family trust with known beneficiaries and specified shares as per the trust deed. The invocation of section 164 r.w.s 2(29C) by the Assessing Officer and upheld by the CIT(A) was challenged as contrary to the facts.

Key evidence and findings: The trust deed clearly identified beneficiaries and their respective shares. The Tribunal noted that the provisions of section 164 are not applicable to specific trusts with ascertainable beneficiaries as per section 2(29C).

Application of law to facts: Since the assessee is a private specific trust with known beneficiaries, the provisions of section 164 could not be invoked to tax the trust at the maximum marginal rate or to apply special provisions meant for discretionary trusts.

Treatment of competing arguments: The Department relied on the CIT(A)'s affirmation of the invocation of section 164, whereas the assessee argued for non-applicability given the trust's nature. The Tribunal sided with the assessee.

Conclusions: The Tribunal concluded that the invocation of section 164 r.w.s 2(29C) was erroneous and not justified on the facts of the case.

Issue (c): Interest Levied under Sections 234B and 234C

Relevant legal framework and precedents: Sections 234B and 234C of the Income Tax Act provide for interest on default in payment of advance tax and deferment of advance tax installments, respectively.

Court's interpretation and reasoning: The CIT(A) affirmed the interest levied by the Assessing Officer under these provisions. The assessee challenged this affirmation.

Key evidence and findings: The Tribunal observed that the interest liability is consequential upon the tax liability. Since the tax liability was to be recomputed after correcting the surcharge, the interest should also be recalculated accordingly.

Application of law to facts: The Tribunal directed the Assessing Officer to charge interest as per law on the tax actually levied after recomputation of surcharge.

Treatment of competing arguments: The assessee sought relief from interest, while the Department insisted on its applicability. The Tribunal balanced the position by allowing interest but only on the corrected tax amount.

Conclusions: The interest under sections 234B and 234C was to be charged as per law on the revised tax liability, and the CIT(A)'s order affirming interest was modified accordingly.

Issue (d): Miscellaneous Grounds and Procedural Aspects

Ground No. 5 in both appeals related to the general prayer for leave to add, modify or amend grounds and to adduce additional evidence. The Tribunal observed that this ground was general and did not require separate adjudication.

3. SIGNIFICANT HOLDINGS

The Tribunal's crucial legal reasoning can be preserved in the following verbatim extracts:

"We have considered the submissions made and find that the surcharge @ 10% only should have been applied as the income was below Rs. 1 Crore. For A.Y. as the total income was only Rs. 24,78,407, therefore, no surcharge was leviable. Hence, the appeals are allowed for both the assessment years and the Ld. AO is directed to apply the surcharge @10% for A.Y. 2022-23 as the income did not exceed Rs. 1.0 Crore and apply NIL surcharge for A.Y. 2023-24 as the income did not exceed Rs. 50,000/-. Hence Ground Nos. 1, 2 and 3 are allowed."

"Ground No. 4 is consequential in nature and the Ld. AO is directed to charge interest as per law on the tax levied."

Core

← Previous Next →