CRYSTAL CROP PROTECTION LIMITED,DELHI vs. DCIT, DELHI
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH, ‘B’: NEW DELHI
Before: SHRI KUL BHARAT & SHRI BRAJESH KUMAR SINGH
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH, ‘B’: NEW DELHI
BEFORE SHRI KUL BHARAT, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI BRAJESH KUMAR SINGH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER
ITA No.302/Del/2022 [Assessment Year: 2011-12]
M/s Crystal Crop Protection DCIT, Limited, Circle-4(2), ITO, B-95, Wazirpur Industrial Vs New Delhi-110002 Area, Delhi-110052 PAN-AABCJ3574E Assessee Revenue
Assessee by Sh. S.S. Nagar, CA Revenue by Sh. Dayainder Singh Sidhu, CIT(DR)
Date of Hearing 12.06.2024 Date of Pronouncement 29.08.2024
ORDER PER BRAJESH KUMAR SINGH, AM,
This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order of
National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi, dated 14.12.2021
pertaining to Assessment Year 2011-12.
The grounds of appeal raised by the assessee reads as under:-
“1. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the disallowance, imposition of tax and interest with reference thereto, the quantification of taxable income and the tax liability, has been grossly unjustified, erroneous and unsustainable and necessary direction be given to the Ld. AO to give appropriate relief in accordance with law. 2. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Ld. AO erred in giving credit of MAT by first adding education cess and surcharge to gross tax and then adjusting MAT credit therefrom instead of first adjusting such credit from gross tax exclusive of
2 ITA No.302/Del/2022
surcharge and education cess and then adding education cess and surcharge thereto. 3. That on the facts and the circumstances of the case the Ld. AO erred in granting short interest u/s 244A.” 3. Brief facts of the case:- The assessee company is inter alia
engaged in the business of manufacturing and trading of pesticides,
insecticides, etc. The list of dates arising to the issue in the present appeal
is as under:-
Sl. Dates Description No. 1 30.09.2011 Original return of income filed declaring total income of Rs.129,93,65,800/- computed under the normal provisions of the Act and Rs.138,36,55,191/- u/s 115JB of the Act. 2 30.09.2011 Revised return of income filed declaring total income of Rs.129,93,65,800/- computed under the normal provisions of the Act and Rs.138,36,55,191/- u/s 115JB of the Act. 3 24.03.2014 Assessment u/s 143(3) made, wherein, disallowance u/s 14A read with Rule-8D was made 4 29.12.2015 CIT(A) dismissed the appeal of the assessee against the aforesaid order u/s 143(3). 5 02.12.2019 The ITAT passed an order in favour of the assessee in respect of the appeal filed by the assessee against the order of the ld. CIT(A) dated 20.12.2015. 6 04.08.2020 An order u/s 254 was passed determining refund of Rs.2,89,14,430/-. In this order, the MAT credit of Rs.8,60,09,567/- was adjusted from the total tax liability of Rs.40,36,45,338/- including surcharge (Rs.2,73,41,071/-) and education cess (Rs.1,17,56,660/-)
Against the above tax adjustment of the MAT credit against the
total tax liability of the assessee as detailed at Sr. No.6 as above, the
3 ITA No.302/Del/2022
assessee submits that the MAT credit of Rs.8,60,09,567/- should have
been adjusted first from the tax exclusive of surcharge and education Cess
and then surcharge and education Cess should have been calculated. With
this plea the assessee filed an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A), who dismissed
the appeal of the assessee vide order dated 14.12.2021.
4.1. The Ld. CIT(A) did not agree with the case laws relied upon by
the assessee, wherein, it was held that MAT credit u/s 115JA should be
first reduced from the tax payable and thereafter on the residual amount,
the surcharge and education cess should be levied. The Ld. CIT(A) dealt
with the provisions u/s 115JAA and relied upon the decision of Hon’ble
Apex Court in the case of CIT vs K. Srinivasan (83 ITR 346)(SC), which held
that the term ‘tax’ includes surcharge. The Ld. CIT(A) also did not accept
the plea of the assessee regarding the part -B of the ITR-6 being revised
from Assessment Year 2012-13, wherein, credit u/s 115JAA was placed
after the gross tax liability including tax, surcharge and education cess,
whereas, in the part-B of ITR-6 in AY 2011-12, the sequence of credit u/s
115JAA was just below gross tax payable and thereafter the charge of
surcharge and education cess followed on the ground that there was no
change in the provisions of Section 115JAA of the Act with respect to MAT
Credit. The Ld. CIT(A) also relied upon the following case laws to hold that
the MAT Credit has to be allowed after charging of surcharge and education
cess and not against the tax liability before the levy of surcharge and
education Cess as contended by the assessee. The case laws relied by the
Ld. CIT(A) are as under:-
CIT vs K. Srinivasan [83 ITR 346](SC)
4 ITA No.302/Del/2022
Srei Infrastructure Finance Ltd. vs DCIT [395 ITR 291][Calcutta] 3. M/s Scope International Pvt. Ltd. [TCA No.588 of 2019][Madras] 4. Virtus (India) (P.) Ltd. vs DCIT [157 ITD 1160] [Hyd Trib.] 5. Bhagwati Oxygen Ltd. vs ACIT [167 ITD 645] [Kolkata Trib.] 6. M/s Savita Oil Technologies Ltd. vs ACIT [ITA No.3066/Mum/2015] dated 07.02.2017
Aggrieved by the order of the ld. CIT(A), the assessee is in appeal
before us.
The ld. AR submitted the same arguments as made before the ld.
CIT(A) and filed a written submission as under:-.
5 ITA No.302/Del/2022
We have heard both the parties and perused the material
available on record. The submissions of the assessee, the provisions of law
and the judicial pronouncements on the issue have been examined and
considered. In the present case, the appellant has MAT credit of Rs.
8,60,09,567/- during the year. The MAT credit of the assessee was
adjusted from the total tax liability of Rs.40,36,45,338/-inclusive of
surcharge of Rs.2,73,41,071/- and Cess of Rs.1,17,56,660/-, whereas, the
assessee submits that the MAT credit of Rs.8,60,09,567/- should have
been adjusted with the net tax liability of Rs.36,45,47,607 exclusive of
surcharge and Education Cess first, then the surcharge and Education
Cess payable should have been calculated. In this regard, he has relied
6 ITA No.302/Del/2022
upon the decision of the Hon’ble Allahabad High Court in the case of CIT vs
Vacment India (supra), which squarely covers the case in favour of the
assessee. The order of the Hon’ble Court is reproduced as under:-
The appeal by the Revenue under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 arises from an order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal dated 22 May 2014. The assessment year to which the appeal relates is AY 2011-12. 2. The Revenue has formulated the following question of law in support of the appeal: "Whether the Hon'ble ITAT has erred in law as well as in the facts and circumstances of the case in allowing the calculation of tax in violation of the provisions of the relevant Finance Act which prescribe calculation of tax as inclusive of cess and surcharge." 3. In the present case, the assessee filed an appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) against an order that was passed under Section 143 (1) read with Section 154 of the Act by the ACIT-Centralized Processing Centre (CPC), Bangalore, by which a demand of Rs.10,92,766.00 was raised on the assessee. The following grounds of appeal were raised before the Commissioner (Appeals). "1. Because the rectification application filed under Section 154 of the I.T. Act before CPC, Bangalore has been wrongly and illegally rejected. 2. Because surcharge and education cess on the tax payable has been calculated before allowing credit of tax paid in the earlier years under Section 115JAA which is apparently wrong and hence, ACIT (CPC) has erred on facts and as well as on law in rejecting the application filed under Section 154 of the I.T. Act. 3. Because without prejudice to the above mentioned grounds, if the credit of tax paid under Section 115JAA is to be allowed after charging surcharge and education cess, then the credit which has been allowed of the taxes paid in the earlier year should also be inclusive of surcharge and education cess."
The Commissioner (Appeals) allowed the appeal filed by the assessee by an order dated 18 October 2013 and directed the Assessing Officer to compute the gross tax liability on the assessee in accordance with the method of computation provided in ITR-6 for the assessment year 2011-12. The Tribunal has dismissed
7 ITA No.302/Del/2022
the appeal filed by the Revenue by its order dated 22 May 2014. 5. The only question which is raised pertains to the computation of tax in accordance with the modalities which are prescribed in the relevant form, ITR-6. Insofar as is material, the relevant entries in the form (Part B-TTI) are as follows 3 Gross tax payable (enter higher of 2c and 1) 3 4 Credit under section 115JAA of tax 4 paid in earlier years (if 2c is more than 1)(7 of Schedule MATC)
5 Tax payable after credit under section 5 115JAA [(3-4)]
6 Surcharge on 5 6 7 Education cess, including secondary 7 and higher education cess on (5+6)
8 Gross tax liability 8
The aforesaid entries leave no manner of ambiguity in regard to the method of computation of tax liability. Entry 3 requires computation of the gross tax payable. Under entry 4, credit is required to be given under Section 115JAA of the Act of the tax paid in earlier years. Entry 5 requires a computation of the tax payable after credit under Section 115JAA of the Act. The matter is placed beyond doubt by the parenthesis, which indicates that tax payable under entry 5 is to be arrived at by deducting the credit under Section 115JAA of the Act (under entry 3) from the gross tax payable (under entry 4). The surcharge is computed on the amount reflected in entry 5.
The Tribunal has noted that from the next assessment year, AY 2012-13, the position was materially altered, but in the present case, since the dispute related to AY 2011-12, the method of computation, as directed by the Commissioner (Appeals), was plainly in accordance with the methodology as provided in ITR-6. The Tribunal in confirming the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) has, hence, not committed any error. The appeal will not give rise to any substantial question of law and is, accordingly, dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.” 8. 7.1. Further, on perusal of the decisions relied upon by the Ld. CIT(A) in
dismissing the appeal of the assessee, it is seen that the same held that
when the tax is paid u/s 115JB along with surcharge and cess, then entire
8 ITA No.302/Del/2022
amount would be considered for credit available u/s 115JAA and
accordingly the entire amount would be available for the benefit of set off in
the subsequent years from the amount of gross tax payable by the
assessee. In this case, as evident from the chart submitted by the assessee,
the assessee has calculated tax payable u/s 115JB as well as the MAT
credit available for the current year as well as the cumulative MAT available
amounting to Rs.8,60,09,567/- without considering surcharge and
education cess as the case may be during the said years. Therefore, the
decision of the Ld. CIT(A) in dismissing the appeal of the assessee and
thereby upholding the action of the AO for including surcharge and
education cess on tax payable before allowing MAT credit without giving the
parity benefit to the assessee to include similar surcharge and education
cess paid on the MAT credit in the respective assessment years before
making such an adjustment cannot be sustained.
7.2. Further, the decision of Hon’ble Allahabad High Court in the case of
Vacment India (supra) squarely covers the case in favour of the assessee.
Respectfully following the same in the given facts of the case, we, therefore,
direct the AO to adjust first MAT credit of Rs.8,60,09,567/- from the tax
payable exclusive of surcharge and education cess and thereafter,
surcharge and education cess should be calculated as claimed by the
assessee. Ground Nos. 1 & 2 of the appeal are allowed.
Ground No.3 of the appeal is against short grant of interest u/s 244A
of the Act. The AO is directed to verify the claim of the assessee and allow
interest u/s 244A of the Act as per law.
9 ITA No.302/Del/2022
In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed.
Order pronounced in the open court on 29th August, 2024. Sd/- Sd/- [KUL BHARAT] [BRAJESH KUMAR SINGH] JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Dated 29.08.2024. ff^? ff^ ff^ ff^
