2025 (1) TMI 760 - AT - Income Tax

Rectification u/s 154 denied for wrong tax rate challenge - assessee should have filed regular appeal instead

The ITAT Delhi denied rectification u/s 154 where the assessee challenged application of 30% tax rate instead of 25% for income below Rs. 50 crores ... Rectification u/s 154 denied - applying a higher tax rate of 30% instead of 25% on the assessee's income, considering the turnover or gross receipts did not exceed Rs. 50 crores in the relevant previous year - HELD THAT:- We are of considered view that there appears to have been an error on the part of assessee to go for rectification proceedings instead of filing a regular first appeal before CIT(A) against the initiation processed u/s. 143(1) of the Act. The technicalities of the law can never become a handicap of assessee and the Revenue is entitle to only raise a demand in regard to income legally assessable under the provisions of Act. The submissions raised before us on merits quiet substantially make out a case of assessee, however, as the assessee has reached us at appellate stage through proceedings initiated by way of erroneous remedy of filing a rectification application and not a regular appeal before the CIT(A), it will be not appropriate to enter in to the merits and give a relief to the assessee, and perpetuate the illegality further. As in Shivganga Drillers Private Ltd. [2022 (5) TMI 1427 - ITAT INDORE] has taken into consideration decision in Akbar Mohammad, Nagaur [2022 (2) TMI 479 - ITAT JODHPUR] it is a case in point that the assessee did not file any appeal against the intimations passed us 143(1) of the Act and the Ld. Sr. DR is right to the extent that the assessee cannot be given relief for that reason. However, it is also a settled law that the assessee cannot be taxed on an amount on which tax is not legally imposable. Although, the assessee might have chosen a wrong channel for redressal of his grievance, all the same, it is incumbent upon the Tax. Appeal of assessee allowed for statistical purpose only and setting aside the assessment we are restoring the issue on merits for examination and verification of the claim of assessee by the ld. AO 1. ISSUES PRESENTED and CONSIDEREDThe core legal questions addressed in this judgment are:Whether the Assessing Officer (AO) erred in applying a higher tax rate of 30% instead of 25% on the assessee's income, considering the turnover or gross receipts did not exceed Rs. 50 crores in the relevant previous year.Whether the assessee's choice to seek rectification under Section 154 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, instead of filing a regular appeal against the intimation under Section 143(1), was appropriate.Whether the inclusion of Excise Duty, VAT/Sales Tax, and other income in the turnover/gross receipts was justified under the applicable legal framework.2. ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSISIssue 1: Application of Higher Tax RateRelevant Legal Framework and Precedents: The applicable tax rate is determined by the Finance Act, 2018, which specifies a 25% tax rate for entities with turnover or gross receipts not exceeding Rs. 50 crores in the previous year.Court's Interpretation and Reasoning: The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) upheld the AO's decision to apply a 30% tax rate based on the inclusion of Excise Duty, VAT/Sales Tax, and other income in the turnover/gross receipts, which allegedly exceeded Rs. 50 crores.Key Evidence and Findings: The CIT(A) considered Excise Duty, VAT/Sales Tax, and other income as part of turnover, leading to the conclusion that the total exceeded Rs. 50 crores.Application of Law to Facts: The Tribunal found that the inclusion of these components in turnover was a debatable issue and not suitable for adjustment under Section 143(1).Treatment of Competing Arguments: The assessee argued that these components should not form part of turnover, citing various judicial decisions. The Revenue maintained the position that the inclusion was justified.Conclusions: The Tribunal concluded that the issue was debatable and should not have been resolved through rectification proceedings. It was more appropriate for a regular appeal process.Issue 2: Choice of Remedy - Rectification vs. AppealRelevant Legal Framework and Precedents: Section 154 of the Income Tax Act allows for rectification of apparent mistakes, while Section 143(1) orders are appealable.Court's Interpretation and Reasoning: The Tribunal observed that the assessee opted for rectification under Section 154 instead of a regular appeal, which was an erroneous choice.Key Evidence and Findings: The Tribunal referenced decisions from other cases, highlighting that an appeal lies against an intimation under Section 143(1) if the assessee denies liability.Application of Law to Facts: The Tribunal emphasized that the technicalities of law should not hinder justice and that the correct procedural path should have been a regular appeal.Treatment of Competing Arguments: The assessee defended the choice of rectification, while the Tribunal noted the availability of a direct appeal route.Conclusions: The Tribunal determined that the assessee should have filed a regular appeal, and the choice of rectification was inappropriate.Issue 3: Inclusion of Excise Duty, VAT/Sales Tax, and Other IncomeRelevant Legal Framework and Precedents: The determination of turnover/gross receipts is guided by the Finance Act and relevant judicial interpretations.Court's Interpretation and Reasoning: The Tribunal acknowledged the debatable nature of including these components in turnover, referencing judicial decisions that support the assessee's position.Key Evidence and Findings: The Tribunal noted the CIT(A)'s reliance on these components to justify the higher tax rate.Application of Law to Facts: The Tribunal found that the inclusion of these components was not straightforward and required a detailed examination, unsuitable for rectification under Section 154.Treatment of Competing Arguments: The Tribunal considered the assessee's reliance on judicial precedents to argue against inclusion, while the Revenue's stance was based on the CIT(A)'s findings.Conclusions: The Tribunal concluded that the issue required further examination and verification by the AO, as the initial approach was procedurally flawed.3. SIGNIFICANT HOLDINGSPreserve verbatim quotes of crucial legal reasoning: 'The technicalities of the law can never become a handicap of assessee and the Revenue is entitled to only raise a demand in regard to income legally assessable under the provisions of Act.'Core Principles Established: The judgment underscores the importance of choosing the correct procedural remedy and the necessity of a thorough examination of debatable issues through appropriate channels.Final Determinations on Each Issue: The Tribunal allowed the appeal for statistical purposes, setting aside the assessment and remanding the case to the AO for a fresh examination of the merits, emphasizing the need for proper procedural adherence.