2025 (6) TMI 1207

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... of natural justice. It is a settled principle that an order passed without providing an opportunity of hearing is void ab initio. The Hon'ble Supreme Court, in the case of Maneka Gandhi vs. Union of India (1978 AIR 597), has held that the right to be heard is an essential component of fair procedure. 2) The learned ICIT (A) erroneously confirmed the inclusion of surcharge despite the appellant's total income being significantly below Rs. 50 lakhs. Section 167B of the Income Tax Act categorically prescribes that no surcharge is applicable that on an Association of Persons (ADP) whose income is below Rs. 50 lakhs. The legislative intent behind this provision is to ensure that entities with lower income are not burdened with ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ncome Tax (2024), the Hon'ble ITAT held that surcharge is leviable only when the total income exceeds Rs. 50 lakhs. Similarly, in Ujjwal Business Trust vs. Income Tax Officer (2024), the tribunal emphasized that surcharge inclusion without fulfilling income criteria violates statutory provisions. 5) The computation of tax liability as per the intimation under Section 143(1) is fundamentally flawed. The taxes demanded exceed the declared income, which is contrary to the principle that taxes cannot exceed the total income. This erroneous computation has resulted in an unjustified financial burden on the appellant. 6) The unjustified demand raised by the Department adversely affects the appellant's charitable activiti....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....xes including interest and penalties amounting to Rs. 36,096/- were paid on 27-11-2024. Deputy Director of Income Tax CPC issued an intimation u/s. 143(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 thereby raising a demand of Rs. 15,250/- for assessment year 2021-22. The demand raised by the intimation is related to the addition of surcharge component to the income tax liability. This surcharge inclusion resulted in an inflated tax demand as per the assessee. The assessee filed appeal before the CIT(A) against intimation order dated 27-11-2024. The CIT(A) dismissed the appeal of the assessee. 4. The A.R. submitted that the CIT(A) mis-interpreted the definition of maximum marginal rate u/s. 229(C) of the Income Tax Act defines the term maximum marginal ....