Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee, Swati Sarawagi Family Trust (a private specific family trust), filed appeals against orders from the CIT(A) which upheld intimation orders under Section 143(1) for AY 2022-23 and 2023-24. For AY 2022-23, with a total income of Rs. 24,78,407/-, the CPC calculated surcharge at Rs. 2,75,102/- (37% rate), along with excess cess and interest, whereas the assessee contended a 10% surcharge or NIL was applicable, and that Sections 167B or 164(1) were not applicable.
Held
The Tribunal held that for AY 2022-23, a 10% surcharge should be applied as the income was below Rs. 1 Crore, and for AY 2023-24, NIL surcharge should be applied as the income did not exceed Rs. 50,000/-. The lower authorities erred in invoking Section 164 read with Section 2(29C) and applying a higher surcharge. The Assessing Officer was directed to re-calculate interest under Sections 234B and 234C as per the correct tax liability.
Key Issues
The key issues were the correct rate of surcharge applicable to a private specific family trust when the income is below the threshold for higher rates, the applicability of Sections 164/2(29C) and 167B, and the consequential calculation of interest under Sections 234B and 234C.
Sections Cited
250, 143(1), 164, 2(29C), 234B, 234C, 167B, 164(1)
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, KOLKATA ‘A’ BENCH, KOLKATA
Before: SHRI PRADIP KUMAR CHOUBEY & SHRI RAKESH MISHRA
order : April 25th, 2025 ORDER PER RAKESH MISHRA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER: Both these appeals filed by the assessee are against separate orders of the Addl/JCIT(A)-Prayagraj [hereinafter referred to as Ld. 'CIT(A)'] passed u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) for AY 2022-23 & AY 2023-24 dated 23.10.2024 & 14.11.2024, which have been passed against the intimation orders u/s 143(1) of the Act, dated 16.03.2023 & 18.12.2023, respectively.
The assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal raising the following grounds of appeal: AY 2022-23 “1. The Id. CIT(A), NFAC erred in law and on facts to affirm the order of the Assessing Officer, NFAC.
2. The Ld. CIT(A), NFAC erred in law to affirm the order of the Assessing Officer, NFAC in which surcharge applicable on income was clubbed with highest rate of income tax against the provisions given in chapter ii, 1st Schedule part 1 of Finance Act, 2022.
3. The Ld. CIT(A), NFAC erred in law to invoke the provision section 164 r.w.s 2(29C) of the Act in contrary to the facts of the case.
4. The Ld. CIT(A), NFAC erred in law to affirm order of the Assessing Officer, NFAC on interest u/s.234B and 234C of the Income Tax Act.
5. That the appellate craves leave to add, modify or amend the ground of appeal and to adduce additional evidence in support of ground of appeal at the time of hearing of the case.” AY 2023-24 “1. The Id. CIT(A), NFAC erred in law and on facts to affirm the order of the Assessing Officer, NFAC.
2. The Ld. CIT(A), NFAC erred in law to affirm the order of the Assessing Officer, NFAC in which surcharge applicable on income was clubbed with highest rate of income tax against the provisions given in chapter ii, 1st Schedule part 1 of Finance Act, 2023.
3. The Ld. CIT(A), NFAC erred in law to invoke the provision section 164 r.w.s 2(29C) of the Act in contrary to the facts of the case.
4. The Ld. CIT(A), NFAC erred in law to affirm order of the Assessing Officer, NFAC on interest u/s.234B and 234C of the Income Tax Act.
5. That the appellate craves leave to add, modify or amend the ground of appeal and to adduce additional evidence in support of ground of appeal at the time of hearing of the case.”