TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (8) TMI 1722
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....". Heard both the parties. Case file perused. 2. This assessee's appeal raises the following substantive grounds: "1. The learned Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)] erred in confirming the levy of tax and surcharge at a higher rate while processing the Return under Section 143(1) of the Act by the learned Assistant Director of Income Tax (CPC) (The Assessing Officer), (hereinafter referred to as "the AO"). It is submitted that the adjustment has been made to tax liability of the Appellant without affording to the Appellant any opportunity of being heard and the same is in gross violation of principles of natural justice and also not in accordance with the provisions of Section 143(1)(a) of the Act. Hence, the said ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the learned lower authorities could not have assessed it under the maximum rate with surcharge at higher rate, as the case may be. We note in this factual backdrop, as per the tribunal's recent coordinate bench's order in ITA No. 131/Del/2025 dated 23.07.2025 has decided this very issue in assessee's favour and against the department reading as under: "2. At the time of hearing, ld. AR of the assessee submitted that the assessee is an AOP, filed its return of income for the AY 2021-22 on 11.10.2021 declaring total income of Rs.1,18,24,410/-. The return was processed under section 143(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (for short 'the Act') wherein CPC has accepted the return of income, however the AO levied tax at a flat rate of 30% as....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ssociation of Interlocking Surgeons vs. ITO - (2025) 172 taxmann.com 9 (Pune); (iii) ITAT, Cochin Bench in the case of Mahakavi Edasseri Smarka Trust vs. ITO (E) - (2024) taxmann.com 44 (Cochin); (iv) ITAT, SMC, Ahmedabad Bench in the case of Jain Sangh Parabdi Khayu Trustee vs. DCIT, Bangalore - ITA No.353-354/AHD/2021. 6. On the other hand, ld. DR of the Revenue relied on the orders of the authorities below. 7. Considered the rival submissions and material placed on record. We observe that in the current assessment year, lower authorities have applied the rate of MMR and also applied surcharge applicable to AOP as applicable to section 167B (1) of the Act. However, it is brought to our notice that the c....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....fixed is also not applicable to facts of the appellant for the reason mentioned supra. Hence, the rate of MMR under both sub sections (1) and (2) of 1678 is not applicable to appellant' case. 7.2.7. It is pertinent to refer to the Circular of the C8DT in No. 320, dated 11.01.1982. The said circular is reproduced as under: "Circular: No. 320 [F. No. 131(31)/81-TP (Pt.)], dated 11-1- 1982- SECTION 167A ASSESSMENT WHERE SHARES OF MEMBERS UNKNOWN) 911. Whether the section is applicable to income received by trustees on behalf of provident funds created exclusively for the benefit of employees 5 ITA No.131/DEL/2025 1. A reference is invited to paragraph 15. 1 to 15.7 of the Explanatory Notes on the provisi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ome-tax Act, as hitherto. Similarly, in the cases of registered societies, trade and professional associations, social and sports clubs, charitable or religious trusts, etc., where the members or trustees are not entitled to any share in the income of the association of persons, the provisions of new section 167 A will not be attracted and, accordingly, tax will be payable in such cases at the rate ordinarily applicable to the total income of an association of persons and not at the maximum marginal rate". 7.2.8. In view of the above, the appeal of the appellant is allowed and AO is directed to tax the appellant's income at the normal tax rates applicable to AOP or Body of Individuals for the AY 2022-23." 8. Similarly,....