Indrayani Ferrocast Private Limited, Pune, Pune V. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-11, Pune, Pune

ITA 501/PUN/2022

AI Insights

Indrayani Ferrocast Private Limited appealed against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) - 11, Pune, which had rejected their rectification petition under section 154 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The dispute centered on the adjustment of Minimum Alternate Tax (MAT) credit against the total tax liability, which includes surcharge and education cess. The assessee argued that the MAT credit should be applied before the calculation of surcharge and education cess, a position supported by their appeal to the CIT(A). However, the CIT(A) rejected this claim, referencing a decision by the Calcutta High Court that supported the inclusion of surcharge and education cess in the total tax liability before applying MAT credit. The Tribunal, after reviewing the CIT(A)'s well-reasoned order and the applicable legal precedents, dismissed the appeal.

• Counselvise Citation: [2023] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 137158 (ITAT-PUNE)
• Duration Of Justice: 7 month(s) 30 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 27-02-2023
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Next Hearing Date: 26-02-2023
• Assessment Year: 2011-2012
• Appeal Filed On: 28-06-2022
• Other Referred Cases: Srei Infrastructure Finance Ltd. vs. DCIT
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Section: 154; 143(1)

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCH “A”, PUNE BEFORE SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI S. S. VISWANETHRA RAVI, JUDICIAL MEMBER आयकर अपील सं. / ITA No.501/PUN/2022 िनधाᭅरण वषᭅ / Assessment Year : 2011-12 Indrayani Ferrocast Private Limited, Gat No.225, Dhanore, Alandi Markal Road, Village: Dhanore, Taluka: Khed, Pune- 412105. PAN : AAACI8271N Vs. ACIT, Circle-11, Pune. Appellant Respondent आदेश / ORDER PER INTURI RAMA RAO, AM: This is an appeal filed by the assessee directed against the order of ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)- 11, Pune [‘the CIT(A)’] dated 04.05.2022 for the assessment year 2011-12. Assessee by : Adjournment Application (Rejected) Revenue by : Shri Ramnath P. Murkunde Date of hearing : 27.02.2023 Date of pronouncement : 28.02.2023 ITA No.501/PUN/2022 2 2. Briefly, the facts of the case are that the appellant is a company engaged in the business of manufacturing of M. S. Billets from melting M.S. Scrap. The Return of Income for the assessment year 2011-12 was filed on 16.09.2011 declaring total income of Rs.6,40,35,123/-. The return of income was processed u/s 143(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘the Act’) on 08.11.2012 raising a demand of Rs.7,08,780/-. 3. On receipt of the Intimation u/s 143(1) of the Act, the appellant filed a rectification petition u/s 154 seeking that the MAT credit was allowed after levying of surcharge and education cess. The said application came to be rejected. 4. Being aggrieved by the rejection of the rectification petition u/s 154 of the Act, an appeal was filed before the ld. CIT(A) contending that the MAT credit u/s 115JAA was allowed after calculating the gross tax liability after levying of surcharge and education cess. An additional ground of appeal was also filed before the ld. CIT(A) praying that the MAT credits have been allowed without considering the corresponding surcharge and education cess. However, the ld. CIT(A) rejected both the grounds of appeal placing reliance on the decision of the Hon’ble Calcutta High Court in the case of Srei Infrastructure Finance Ltd. vs. DCIT, ITA No.501/PUN/2022 3 72 taxmann.com 239 (Cal.) wherein it has held that MAT credit under the provisions of section 115JAA brought forward from earlier years is to be set off against the total tax liability on the total income including surcharge and education cess. Similarly, the request for amount of MAT credits including surcharge and education cess were rejected by the ld. CIT(A) on the ground that while processing the return of income u/s 143(1) only those claims can be allowed, which are within the scope of section 143(1), the claim not made in the return of income, cannot be allowed. 5. Being aggrieved, the appellant is in appeal before us in the present appeal. 6. When the matter was called on, none appeared on behalf of the appellant-assessee despite due service of notice of hearing. However, there was a petition seeking adjournment of hearing on the ground that the Counsel was busy. The assessee also filed a written submission. 7. We had carefully gone through the order passed by the ld. CIT(A), which is a well speaking and reasoned order, we find that the order of the ld. CIT(A) is in consonance with the settled position of law and does not require any interference. Accordingly, the grounds of appeal filed by the assessee stand dismissed. ITA No.501/PUN/2022 4 8. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands dismissed. Order pronounced on this 28 th day of February, 2023. Sd/- Sd/- (S. S. VISWANETHRA RAVI) (INTURI RAMA RAO) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER पुणे / Pune; ᳰदनांक / Dated : 28 th February, 2023. Sujeet आदेश कᳱ ᮧितिलिप अᮕेिषत / Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. अपीलाथᱮ / The Appellant. 2. ᮧ᭜यथᱮ / The Respondent. 3. The CIT(A)-11, Pune. 4. The Pr. CIT (Central), Pune. 5. िवभागीय ᮧितिनिध, आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, “A” बᱶच, पुणे / DR, ITAT, “A” Bench, Pune. 6. गाडᭅ फ़ाइल / Guard File. आदेशानुसार / BY ORDER, // True Copy // Senior Private Secretary आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, पुणे / ITAT, Pune.