SRIJAN FAMILY TRUST,NEW DELHI vs. ITO WARD-28(1), NEW DELHI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 386/DEL/2025Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 August 2025AY 2023-24Bench: SHRI YOGESH KUMAR U.S. (Judicial Member), SHRI MANISH AGARWAL (Accountant Member)1 pages

In favour of the assessee: the assessee's appeal was allowed. From the AI summary of this appeal.

AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the Assessee had filed an application u/s 154 of the Act, which was allowed by the CPC, rectifying the mistake by levying the correct surcharge rate. Therefore, the order of the Ld. CIT(A) was liable to be set aside.

What were the facts?

The Assessee filed a return of income and was issued an intimation by the AO/CPC computing tax liability with a surcharge rate of 37% on dividend income. The Assessee appealed to the Ld. CIT(A), who dismissed the appeal. The Assessee then filed the present appeal before the Tribunal.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) erred in upholding the incorrect levy of surcharge on dividend income when the same was rectified by the CPC u/s 154 of the Act.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 143(1),Section 154

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI

Before: SHRI YOGESH KUMAR U.S. & SHRI MANISH AGARWAL

For Appellant: CA and Shri Ankit
Hearing: 30/07/2025Pronounced: 13/08/2025

ORDER PER YOGESH KUMAR, U.S. JM:

The present appeal is filed by the Assessee against the order of Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)/ADDL/JCIT(A), Faridabad (‘Ld. CIT(A) for short), New Delhi dated 25/11/2024 for the Assessment Year 2023-24.

2.

Brief facts of the case are that, the Assessee filed return of income at Rs. 1,30,13,620/- the A.O./CPC while processing the return of income, computed the tax liability by levying a surcharge rate at 37% on the dividend income vide intimation dated 18/12/2023 passed u/s 143(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ('Act' for short). Aggrieved by the Intimation dated 18/12/2023, the Assessee preferred an Appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). The Ld. CIT(A) vide order dated 25/11/2024, dismissed the Appeal filed by the Assessee. As against the order of the Ld. CIT(A), the Assessee preferred the present appeal.

3.

The ld. Counsel for the Assessee vehemently submitted that, the Ld. CIT(A) committed grave error in dismissing the Appeal of the Assesseeby upholding the erroneous levy of incorrect rate of surcharge of 37% against the correct rate of surcharge of 15% maximum surcharge rate applicable on dividend income. The Ld. Assessee's Representative also submitted that the Assessee has also filed application u/s 154 of the Act which has been allowed by levying correct surcharge by the CPC, therefore, submitted that order of the Ld. CIT(A) requires to be quashed.

4.

Per contra, the Ld. Department's Representative relying on the orders of the Lower Authorities, sought for dismissal of the Appeal.

5.

We have heard both the parties and perused the material available on record.It is found that the Assessee filed an application u/s 154 of the Act as against the original Intimation passed by the CPC/A.O. dated 18/12/2023 for Assessment Year 2023-24. The CPC vide order dated 14/06/2024, allowed the said application filed by the Assessee by levying correct rate of surcharge on the dividend income.The said order dated 14/06/2024 passed u/s 154 of the Act is placed at page No. 52-59 of the Paper Book filed by the Assessee.

Considering the fact that,the CPC itself has rectified the mistake wherein levied the correct rate of surcharge on the dividend income, the order of the Ld. CIT(A) is liable to be set aside. Accordingly, order impugned dated 25/11/2024 passed by the Ld. CIT(A) is hereby quashed.

6.

In the result, Appeal of the Assessee is allowed.

More judgments on Section 154

All 8,676 judgments and leading authorities on Section 154 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →