Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee, a private specific family trust, had a total income of Rs. 24,78,407/- for AY 2022-23. The CPC levied a surcharge of Rs. 2,75,102/- (instead of NIL) along with excess cess and interest, which was upheld by the Ld. CIT(A). The assessee argued that surcharge should be 10% for income below Rs. 1 crore (AY 2022-23) and NIL for income below Rs. 50,000 (AY 2023-24), given the beneficiaries' shares were known, making Sections 167B and 164(1) inapplicable.
Held
The Tribunal held that for AY 2022-23, a surcharge of 10% should apply as the income was below Rs. 1 Crore, and for AY 2023-24, NIL surcharge should apply as the income did not exceed Rs. 50,000. It directed the Assessing Officer to re-calculate the tax liability accordingly, including interest as per law on the revised tax levied.
Key Issues
Whether the correct rate of surcharge was applied to the income of a private specific family trust for AY 2022-23 and AY 2023-24, and whether the provisions of Sections 164 and 2(29C) of the Income Tax Act were rightly invoked.
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.”