RAJIV TRUST,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, MUMBAI

At the outset of hearing, the learned Authorised Representative (ld. AR) of the assessee submits that grounds of appeal raised by assessee is covered by the decision of Special Bench of Tribunal in Araadhya Jain Trust Vs ITO in dated 09.04.2025, wherein it has been held that in case of ‘Private Discretionary Trust’, whose income is chargeable maximum marginal rate, surcharge is chargeable at respective slab rate and not at the highest rate. Copy of decision of Special Bench of Tribunal in Araadhya Jain Trust (supra) is filed.

On the other hand, learned Senior Departmental Representative (ld. Sr. DR) for the revenue supported the order of lower authorities.

We have considered the rival submissions of both the parties and have gone through the orders of lower authorities carefully. There is no dispute that assessee is a ‘Private Discretionary Trust’ and having registration under section 12A. The assessee while filing return of income has shown income of Rs. 56.44 crore. The assessee calculated payable tax at maximum marginal rate i.e. at 30% and surcharge @ 15%. The Central Processing Centre (CPC) made adjustment and applied surcharge at 30% as per intimation dated 27.05.2024. On appeal before ld. CIT(A), the action of CPC was upheld by holding that assessee is required to compute the surcharge as per section 2(29C) of the Act. We find that the issue raised in the present appeal has been settled by Special Bench of Tribunal in Araadhya Jain Trust vs ITO (supra) wherein five other trusts joined as intervener, passed the following order:

Ongoing through Paragraph A, Part (I) of First Schedule to the Finance Act-2023, it becomes very much clear that under Item (1), the rates of income tax applicable to individuals, Hindu undivided family or association of persons or body of individuals have provided. As could be seen from the rates of income-tax for different income brackets, if the total income does not exceed Rs.2,50,000/-, the rate of income tax is Nil. If the total income exceeds Rs.2,50,000/-, but does not exceed Rs.5,00,000/-, the rate of income tax is 5% of the amount by which the total income exceeds Rs.2,50,000/-. Where the total income exceeds Rs.5,00,000/- but des not exceed Rs.10,00,000/-, the rate of income tax is Rs.12,500 plus 20% of the amount by which the total income exceeds Rs.5,00,000/- and lastly, where the total income exceeds Rs. 10,00,000/-, then the rate of tax is Rs.1,12,500/-plus 30% of the amount by which the total income exceeds Rs. 10,00,000/-. Thus, as per the rates of income tax prescribed in Item (1), the highest slab of income is Rs.10 lacs and above and the applicable rate of income tax is 30%. Thus, in terms with section 2(29C) of the Act, the maximum marginal rate of tax will be 30% as applicable to the highest slab of income.

The expression 'slab' is not mentioned either in sub-section (1) of section 2 or even under Paragraph A, Part (I) of First Schedule to the Finance Act-2023. However, as per the materials placed before us, it is observed that in Press Note dated 01.12.1965 issued by Government of India, copy of which is placed at pg. no. 45 of the Paper Book, submitted in case of NIK Family Trust, the expression 'slab' refers to 'income' and not the tax. In fact, even section 2(29C) of the Act refers to highest slab of income. Even Circular No. 2/2018 (F.No. 370142/15/2017-TPL] containing Explanatory Notes to Provisions of Finance Act, 2017, a copy of which is placed at pg. no. 47 of the Paper Book filed by the NIK Family Trust, refers the expression 'slab' to the various categories of income. Thus, in terms with sections 164/167B r.w.s. 2(29C) of the Act, tax as per maximum marginal rate would mean 'the rate of tax applicable to the highest slab of income' under Item (1) of Paragraph A. Part (I) of First Schedule to the Finance Act-2023.

Under the head 'Surcharge on income-tax' appearing in Paragraph A, Part (1), First Schedule it has been provided that the amount of income-tax computed as per the rate of income-tax under Item (1), (2) and (3) or under the provisions of section 111A or section 112 or section 112A or the provision of section 115BAC of the Income Tax Act, shall be increased by a surcharge, for the purposes of the Union, calculated in the case of particular class of assessees in the manner provided therein. As could be seen from items (a) to (e), provided under the head 'Surcharge on income-tax', there are different rates of surcharge on income tax, depending upon the categories of income. The rate of surcharge starts from minimum of 10% to the maximum of 37% on income-tax. The maximum rate of surcharge at 37% on income-tax is applicable in case of assessees having total income, exceeding Rs.5 crores. It further emanates that the minimum rate of surcharge @ 10% on the income-tax is applicable only when the income of the assessee is above Rs.50 lacs, but less than Rs.1 crore. Thus, as per Paragraph A, Part (I) of First Schedule to the Finance Act-2023, the threshold limit for applicability of surcharge is when total income is Rs.50 lacs and above. In other words, if the total income is below the threshold limit of Rs.50 lacs, there would be no surcharge. Even the first proviso under the heading 'Surcharge on income-tax' carves out an exception regarding the rate of surcharge by stating that in case where assessee's total income includes dividend income or income under the provisions of section 111A, 112A and section 112A of the Act, the rate of surcharge on the amount of income-tax computed on that part of income shall not exceed 15%. In other words, if the total income of an assessee includes any income by way of dividend or income under certain provisions of the Act, the rate of surcharge on tax computed on such part of income under no circumstances would exceed 15%.

If we accept the contention of the Revenue that, irrespective of the nature or quantum of income, as per the definition of maximum marginal rate u/s.2(29C) of the Act, surcharge has to be computed at the highest rate of 37% applicable to the highest income bracket of Rs.5 crores and above, then the exception provided under the first proviso under the heading 'Surcharge on income-tax' would become otiose. Even, the different rates of surcharge on income-tax provided under clause (a) to (e) applicable to the different slabs of income would become meaningless so far as discretionary trusts are concerned. In our view, such an interpretation would lead to absurdity, hence, is unworkable. In our view, once the definition of 'maximum marginal rate refers to the rate of income-tax and surcharge provided under the Finance Act of the relevant year, then the rates of income-tax and applicable rate of surcharge as provided under Paragraph A, Part (I) of First Schedule to the Finance Act-2023, would apply. Any other interpretation, in our view, would lead to undesirable consequences and would be discriminatory. In our view, the expression 'including Surcharge on income-tax, if any, within the bracketed portion of section 2(29C) of the Act, would mean the surcharge as provided in the computation mechanism under the heading 'surcharge on income tax' finding place in Paragraph A, Part (I) of First Schedule to the Finance Act-2023.

The Revenue has taken a line of argument that the words 'if any' succeeding the words 'including surcharge on income tax' appearing in the definition of maximum marginal rate u/s. 2(29C) of the Act are only for the purpose that when levy of surcharge is specifically provided under the Finance Act of the relevant year, it would be included income-tax computed at the highest rate, otherwise, not. Though, at first blush this argument of the department sounds attractive, however, on deeper analysis it is found to be superfluous, for the following reasons. As discussed earlier, Article 271 of the Constitution of India, empowers the Union to impose surcharge for the purposes of Union. Whereas, Article 265 of the Constitution of India mandates that no tax can be collected without authority of law. Therefore, levy of surcharge has to be preceded by a law enacted by the parliament authorizing such levy. Thus, in absence of any law authorising levy of surcharge, it cannot be collected. This legal position is as clear as daylight, hence, does not require further clarification with the use of words 'if any' to mean whether the Finance Act of a particular year, if at all, provides for levy of surcharge or not. Though, in our view, there is no conflict between provisions contained u/s. 164/167B, 2(29C) of the Income Tax Act and section 2 of the Finance Act, however, even assuming that there are some conflicts, a harmonious construction has to be made to avoid absurdity and make the provisions workable. Thus, in our view, the expression 'if any used in section 2(29C) has to be read not de hors but in conjunction with the computation mechanism provided under the heading "surcharge on income tax' provided in section 2 of Finance Act. This view of ours is further fortified by the object for which levy of surcharge was introduced to the Finance Act - to augment the Revenue of the Union for developmental work by asking persons in the highest income bracket to contribute little more than the other citizens, for nation building.

As we find, the Revenue has placed strong reliance upon the decision of the co- ordinate bench in case of Araadhya Jain Trust (supra) and couple of other decisions, which are on similar line. Pertinently, the decision rendered in case of Anant Bajaj Trust vs. DDIT (in vide order dated 26.08.2024) was subsequently recalled. Whereas, the bench has followed the decision of Anant Bajaj Trust (supra) while deciding appeal of Kapur Family Trust vs. ITO (in & 3835/Mum/2024 vide order dated 30.10.2024). Therefore, the decision rendered in case of Kapur Family Trust (supra) has lost its relevance. Insofar as the decision of the co-ordinate bench in the case of Araadhya Jain Trust (supra) is concerned, in our view, the bench has drawing its conclusion, primarily relying upon certain decisions of Hon'ble Kerala High Court and Hon'ble High Court of Bombay. As discussed elsewhere in the order.

However, upon carefully going through these decisions, we are of the considered view that the issue arising in the present case never fell for consideration before the Hon'ble Courts. The issue in dispute in those cases was primarily concerning what should be the maximum marginal rate and its applicability. The issue 'whether the rate of surcharge would also be at the highest rate while computing tax at maximum marginal rate' was never the issue before the Hon'ble Courts. Thus, in our view, the view expressed by the co-ordinate benches in decisions referred to in Paragraph 10(supra) lay down the correct proposition of law. Thus, in the ultimate analysis, we hold, in case of Private Discretionary Trusts, whose income is chargeable to tax at maximum marginal rate, surcharge has to be computed on the income tax having reference to the slab rates prescribed in the Finance Act under the heading 'surcharge on income tax' appearing in Paragraph A. Part 1, First Schedule, applicable to the relevant assessment year. Hence, reference is decided in favour of the assessee. The records may be returned back to the respective benches for deciding the appeals accordingly.” 5. Considering the consistent decision of Special Bench of Tribunal Araadhya Jain Trust (supra) on similar facts and on similar grounds of appeal and respectfully following the same, the grounds of appeal raised by assessee are allowed.

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed.

As recorded, the assessee has raised similar grounds of appeal as raised in appeal for A.Y. 2023-24 which we have allowedby following the decision of Special Bench in Araadhya Jain Trust (supra), therefore, following the principal of consistency, this appeal is also allowed with similar directions.

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed.