PRADYUMNA DALMIA BENEFICIARY TRUST,KOLKATA V. ADIT(CPC)/I.T.O., WARD - 33(2), , KOLKATA

ITA 1613/KOL/2024

AI Insights

The case involves the Pradyumna Dalmia Beneficiary Trust appealing against the surcharge rate applied by the Addl/JCIT(A) on their income for the Assessment Year 2021-22. The trust argued that the surcharge should be 25% as their income fell between Rs. 2 crore and Rs. 5 crore, contrary to the 37% surcharge applied by the AO. The Tribunal examined the application of the maximum marginal rate (MMR) and the specific provisions of the Finance Act regarding surcharge rates. The Tribunal found that the surcharge should be applied based on the income slab rather than the MMR, leading to the decision to allow the trust's appeal and adjust the surcharge rate accordingly.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 717482 (ITAT-KOLKATA)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 9 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 11-08-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: C
• Assessment Year: 2021-2022
• Appeal Filed On: 02-08-2024
• Other Referred Cases: CIT v. Shri Krishna Bhandar Trust, Nizam's Family Trust, LR Patel Family Trust v. ITO, CIT V S.A.E. Head Office Trust, DIT V. Shardaben Maftalal Trust
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Rule of consistency; Capital Gains; Charitable institution; Maximum Marginal Rate
• Section: 115JB

Judgement Text

"आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण कोलकाता 'सी' पीठ, कोलकाता में IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL KOLKATA ‘C’ BENCH, KOLKATA श्री प्रदीप क ुमार चौबे, न्याधयक सदस्य एवं श्री राक ेश धमश्रा, लेखा सदस्य क े समक्ष Before SHRI PRADIP KUMAR CHOUBEY, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI RAKESH MISHRA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.A. No.: 1613/KOL/2024 Assessment Year: 2021-22 Pradyumna Dalmia Beneficiary Trust Vs. ADIT(CPC), Bengaluru (Appellant) (Respondent) PAN: AACTP6421C Appearances: Assessee represented by : S. Jhajharia, FCA. Department represented by : S.B. Chakraborty, Sr. DR, JCIT. Date of concluding the hearing : 12-June-2025 Date of pronouncing the order : 11-August-2025 ORDER PER RAKESH MISHRA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER: This appeal filed by the assessee is against the order of the Addl/JCIT(A)-1, Lucknow [hereinafter referred to as Ld. ‘Addl/JCIT(A)'] passed u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) for AY 2021-22 dated 25.07.2024, which has been passed against the intimation order u/s 143(1) of the Act, dated 13.10.2022. Printed from counselvise.com Page | 2 I.T.A. No.: 1613/KOL/2024 Assessment Year: 2021-22 Pradyumna Dalmia Beneficiary Trust. 2. The assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal raising the following grounds of appeal: “1. For that in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in upholding the order of the Ld. AO in calculating surcharge at the rate of 37% on a total income of Rs. 3.04 crores. 2. For that in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(Appeals) erred in upholding the order of the Ld. Assistant Director of Income Tax, CPC in levying surcharge at the rate of 37% whereas the income of the assessee attracts surcharge of 25% between 2 to 5 crores. 3. That the appellant craves leave to add, alter, amend and/or modify any of the grounds of appeal at or before the hearing of the appeal.” 3. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee had filed the return of income for AY 2021-22 showing total income of ₹3,04,31,120/- which was processed u/s 143(1) of the Act and a demand of ₹7,95,100/- was raised. Aggrieved with the intimation, the assessee filed an appeal before the Ld. Addl/JCIT(A). The only ground of appeal raised was that the surcharge levied @ 37% should be reduced to 25% as the income of the assessee was between ₹2 and ₹5 Crore. Before the Ld. Addl/JCIT(A), the assessee had relied upon the following judicial pronouncements: i) CIT v. Shri Krishna Bhandar Trust 201 ITR 989 (Calcutta High Court) [1993] ii) Nizam's Family Trust 108 ITR 555 (Supreme Court) iii) LR Patel Family Trust v. ITO 262 ITR 520 (Bombay High Court) iv) CIT V S.A.E. Head Office Trust 271 ITR 159 (Delhi High Court) v) DIT V. Shardaben Maftalal Trust 247 ITR 1 (Bombay High Court) 4. The Ld. Addl/JCIT(A) examined the matter. It was argued before the Ld. Addl/JCIT(A) that the surcharge should be levied on the basis of the income and written submissions were filed relying upon the following decisions: i) The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Commissioner of Wealth Tax vs. Trustees of H. E. H. Nizam's Family (Remainder Wealth) Trust (1977) (108 ITR 555) Printed from counselvise.com Page | 3 I.T.A. No.: 1613/KOL/2024 Assessment Year: 2021-22 Pradyumna Dalmia Beneficiary Trust. ii) The Hon'ble Calcutta High Court in CIT vs. Shri Krishna Bandar Trust (1993) (201 ITR 989) iii) The Hon'ble Bombay High Court in DIT (Exemptions) Vs. Shardaben Bhagubhai Mafatlal Public Charitable Trust (2001) (247 ITR 1) iv) The Hon'ble Bombay High Court in L.R. Patel Family Trust vs. ITO (2003) (262 ITR 520) v) The Hon'ble Delhi High Court in CIT vs. SAE Head Office Monthly Paid Employee Welfare Trust (2004) (271 ITR 159) 5. The assessee had claimed that the surcharge should be levied depending upon the income of the assessee and not on the basis of the tax rate applied, which was maximum marginal rate of tax as the assessee was a private discretionary trust. The Ld. Addl/JCIT(A) dismissed the appeal of the assessee by holding as under: “6.1 The statement of facts, grounds of appeal, and the order appealed against, and submissions of the appellant have been thoroughly examined. All the grounds of appeal are related to the issue of levying of surcharge at the rate of 37% amounting to Rs. 25,16,887/- on the total tax, as against Rs. 17,00,599/- computed by the appellant. Therefore, all the grounds of appeal are clubbed and adjudicated together. 6.2 In the present case, the appellant is a private discretionary trust which filed its return of income for Assessment Year 2021-22 on 29.11.2021 declaring a total income of 3,04,31,120/- on which tax was calculated at the maximum marginal rate which worked out to Rs. 88,43,114/-. While filing the return of income, the surcharge was calculated based on the slab rate applicable to an individual. Thereafter, the appellant received intimation under section 143(1) of the Act dated 13.10.2022 wherein the highest rate of surcharge, i.e. 37% was levied on the assessee and consequently, a demand of Rs. 7,95,100/- was raised. The appellant is aggrieved by this action of AO. The only issue requires to be decided is what will be the rate of surcharge in the case of appellant. 6.3 The appellant stated that the Ld. ADIT, CPC Bangalore had levied the surcharge on the income-tax of the assessee as per the rate applicable to an individual, however, he has erroneously considered the rate at 37% which is applicable for income exceeding Rs. 5 Crores, whereas the surcharge rate applicable according to the income range of the assessee Trust for the concerned AY 2021-22 is 25%. Printed from counselvise.com Page | 4 I.T.A. No.: 1613/KOL/2024 Assessment Year: 2021-22 Pradyumna Dalmia Beneficiary Trust. 6.4 The appellant submitted that Section 2(29C) speaks of levy of surcharge on tax as applicable. If no surcharge is applicable having regard to the income of the assessee, no surcharge is leviable at all on tax computed at MMR. 6.5 The appellant further submitted that Section 4 of the Act provides that income shall be charged in accordance with and subject to the provisions of the Act. The levy of surcharge is governed by the Finance Act which provides for levy of surcharge in a graded manner. The surcharge rate as is applicable to an individual is prescribed under Paragraph A of Part I of The First Schedule. For income ranging between Rs. 2 Crore to 5 Crores, the applicable surcharge rate for AY 2021-22 is 25% which ought to have been applied in the its case. 7.1 The contention of the appellant has been considered but the same is not found tenable. The MMR for this A.Y. 2021-22 is 42.74%. The rates of taxation provided in the first schedule-part-I of Finance Act, 2020 are applicable to the appellant only to the extent of rates of highest slab of tax and surcharge. It is clear that the MMR is applicable to the appellant. There is no dispute on it. Here it is necessary to refer the Finance Act, 2021, Chapter-II, which determines/specifies the rates of income tax to be applicable. The section 2 starts with non-obstante words such as subject to provision of sub-section 2 & 3 for A.Y. 2022-23. Therefore, where sub-section 2 & 3 are applicable, the rates specified in Part-I of first schedule required to be adopted for MMR purpose. The relevant part of sub-section 3 of section 2 of Finance Act is as under: \"In cases to which the provisions of Chapter XII or Chapter XII-A or section 115JB or section 115JC or Chapter XII-FA or Chapter XII-FB or sub-section (1A) of section 161 or section 164 or section 164A or section 167B of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (43 of 1961) (hereinafter referred to as the Income-tax Act) apply, the tax chargeable shall be determined as provided in that Chapter or that section, and with reference to the rates imposed by sub- section (1) or the rates as specified in that Chapter or section, as the case may be:\" 7.2 Hence it is clear that, where MMR is applicable the rates specified in part-l of schedule are only relevant to the extent of calculating MMR and MMR will be charged in the applicable cases by virtue of sub-section 3 of section 2 of Finance Act, 2021. The rate of MMR has to be calculated as per the provisions of section 2(29C) of IT Act r.w.s. 164 of the IT Act. The Finance Act of every year is only relevant to know the highest slab of rate of tax & surcharge. After considering both the rates of tax of highest slab as well as surcharge of highest slab mentioned in the Finance Act MMR is to be Printed from counselvise.com Page | 5 I.T.A. No.: 1613/KOL/2024 Assessment Year: 2021-22 Pradyumna Dalmia Beneficiary Trust. calculated & charged. The word \"if any\" in the section 2(29C) is relevant if the surcharge to the highest slab of income is mentioned in the relevant Finance Act and it will be applicable for a particular A.Y. For example no surcharge was applicable for A.Y. 2010-11 & 2011-12 to slab of income of individual and AOP, Therefore, the word \"if any\" is relevant. Here the word surcharge \"if any\" has relevance to levy of surcharge if mentioned in the Finance Act. The word \"if any\" is related to the specification/mandate of surcharge mention in the schedule of Finance Act. If surcharge of highest slab is mentioned in the Finance Act then this surcharge will be included in the tax and MMR will be calculated accordingly. If no surcharge for highest slab is mentioned in the schedule of Finance Act then no surcharge will be included in the tax quantum for calculating the MMR. This word does not remotely suggest to include surcharge in MMR as per different slab rates of income/different income like dividend income. Provisions of section 164 of IT Act charging the tax at MMR are applicable to the appellant. The appellant is liable for taxation at MMR calculated as per provisions of section 2(29C) of IT Act. 7.3 Therefore, it is crystal clear that MMR is required computed as under on the basis of provisions of section 2(29C) of IT Act: Tax rates for highest slab -30% - 30 Surcharge for highest slab - 37% - 11.11 Education Cess - 4% - 1.63 Therefore MMR for this A.Y. 2021-22 will be 42.74%. Moreover the MMR will not be applicable in parts like in one part of highest slab rate for basic tax i.e. 30% is levied & in one part surcharge is levied at a particular rate. This is not correct. The MMR always constitutes highest slab tax rates & highest slab surcharge if any prescribed in Finance Act. There is no doubt in it. Part applicability of MMR is not permissible. Appellant has paid basic income tax at 30% rate requires to be kept in mind. Once the appellant is eligible for MMR surcharge applicable will be surcharge for highest slab only. Surcharge @37% is integral part of MMR and therefore MMR will be 42.74% for A.Y. 2021-22. 7.4 As far as charging of surcharge @37% while passing the intimation u/s 143(1), it is seen that AO has powers to levy the tax. In clause 'b' of section 143(1) of IT Act. It is clearly mentioned as under: \"(b) the tax [interest and fee], if any, shall be computed on the basis of the total income computes under clause (a);\" Printed from counselvise.com Page | 6 I.T.A. No.: 1613/KOL/2024 Assessment Year: 2021-22 Pradyumna Dalmia Beneficiary Trust. The tax include surcharge also. The AO has not made any adjustment to the income. The decisions quoted by the appellant are related to adjustment of income. The AO has only calculated tax and surcharge applicable to the appellant as per the provisions of IT Act. In this case the appellant has already admitted that it is liable to be taxed at MMR. Therefore, the decision relied upon by the appellant are not applicable at all. Because the AO has only calculated surcharge as specified. Therefore, it is confirmed that the AO has power to levy surcharge @37% while processing the return of income as per provisions of section 143(1). 7.5 In view of above, the AO's action of charging the surcharge @37% is upheld. 8. The appeal of the appellant is dismissed.” 5.1 Aggrieved with the order of the Ld. Addl./Joint CIT(A), the assessee has filed the appeal before the Tribunal. 6. Rival contentions were heard and the submissions made and the paper book filed have been examined. 7. Before us the assessee has filed written submission as under: “1. The Appellant filed Return of income for Assessment Year 2021-22 on 29.11.2021 declaring a total income of Rs. 3,04,31,120/- on which tax was calculated at Rs. 88,43,114. While filing the return of income, the surcharge was calculated based on the slab rate applicable to an individual. The quantum of surcharge was auto-calculated by the income tax software based on the slab rate applicable to an individual assessee. 2. Thereafter, the appellant received intimation order under section 143(1) of the Act dated 13.10.2022 wherein the highest rate of surcharge, i.e. 37% was levied on the assessee and consequently, a demand of Rs. 7,95,100 was raised. 3. The Appellant filed an appeal before the Hon'ble Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). The Hon'ble Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) dismissed the appeal of the appellant on the ground that MMR for Assessment Year 2021-22 will be 42.74% and AO has power to levy surcharge @37% while processing the return of income as per Section 143(1) 4. As per Section 164(1) of the Act - \"Subject to the provisions of sub-sections (2) and (3), where) any income in respect of which the persons mentioned in clauses (iii) and (iv) of sub-section (1) of section 160 are liable as representative assessees or any part thereof is not specifically receivable on behalf or for the benefit of any one person or Printed from counselvise.com Page | 7 I.T.A. No.: 1613/KOL/2024 Assessment Year: 2021-22 Pradyumna Dalmia Beneficiary Trust. where the individual shares of the persons on whose behalf or for whose benefit such income or such part thereof is receivable are indeterminate or unknown (such income, such part of the income and such persons being hereafter in this section referred to as \"relevant income\", \"part of relevant income\" and \"beneficiaries\", respectively), tax shall be charged on the relevant income or part of relevant income at the maximum marginal rate. 5. Section 2(29C) of the Act defines \"maximum marginal rate\" to mean the rate of income-tax (including surcharge on income-tax, if any) applicable in relation to the highest slab of income in the case of an individual, association of persons or, as the case may be, body of individuals as specified in the Finance Act of the relevant year. 6. The rates of taxes and applicable surcharge rates are prescribed under the Finance Act. The Finance Act, 2020 provides as under: \"Section 2- (1) Subject to the provisions of sub-sections (2) and (3), for the assessment year commencing on the 1st day of April, 2020, income-tax shall be charged at the rates specified in Part I of the First Schedule and such tax shall be increased by a surcharge, for the purposes of the Union, calculated in each case in the manner provided therein. (3) In cases to which the provisions of Chapter XII or Chapter XII-A or section 115JB or section 115JC or Chapter XII-FA or Chapter XII-FB or sub-section (1A) of section 161 or section 164 or section 164A or section 167B of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Income-tax Act) apply, the tax chargeable shall be determined as provided in that Chapter or that section, and with reference to the rates imposed by sub-section (1) or the rates as specified in that Chapter or section, as the case may be: THE FIRST SCHEDULE (See section 2) PART I INCOME-TAX Paragraph A (1) In the case of every individual other than the individual referred to in items (II) and (III) of this Paragraph or Hindu undivided family or association of persons or body of individuals, whether incorporated or not, or every artificial juridical person referred to in sub-clause (vii) of clause (31) of section 2 of the Income-tax Act, not being a case to which any other Paragraph of this Part applies, - Rates of income-tax (1) where the total income does not exceed Rs. 2,50,000 Nil; (2) where the total income exceeds Rs. 2,50,000 but does not exceed Rs. 5,00,000 5 per cent. of the amount by which the total income exceeds Rs. 2,50,000; Printed from counselvise.com Page | 8 I.T.A. No.: 1613/KOL/2024 Assessment Year: 2021-22 Pradyumna Dalmia Beneficiary Trust. (3) where the total income exceeds Rs. 5,00,000 but does not exceed Rs. 10,00,000 Rs. 12,500 plus 20 per cent. of the amount by which the total income exceeds Rs. 5,00,000; (4) where the total income exceeds Rs. 10,00,000 Rs. 1,12,500 plus 30 per cent. of the amount by which the total income exceeds Rs. 10,00,000 Surcharge on income-tax The amount of income-tax computed in accordance with the preceding provisions of this Paragraph, or the provisions of section 111A or section 112 or section 112A of the Income tax Act, shall be increased by a surcharge for the purposes of the Union, calculated, in the case of every individual or Hindu undivided family or association of persons or body of individuals, whether incorporated or not, or every artificial juridical person referred to in sub-clause (vii) of clause (31) of section 2 of the Income-tax Act,- a) having a total income (including the income under the provisions of section 111A and section 112A of the Income-tax Act) exceeding fifty lakh rupees but not exceeding one crore rupees, at the rate of ten per cent. of such income-tax, (b) having a total income (including the income under the provisions of section 111A and section 112A of the Income-tax Act) exceeding one crore rupees, but not exceeding two crore rupees at the rate of fifteen per cent. of such income-tax; (c) having a total income (excluding the income under the provisions of section 111A and section 112A of the Income-tax Act) exceeding two crore rupees but not exceeding five crore rupees, at the rate of twenty-five per cent. of such income-tax; (d) having a total income (excluding the income under the provisions of section 111A and section 112A of the Income-tax Act) exceeding five crore rupees, at the rate of thirty seven per cent. of such income-tax; and (e) having a total income (including income under the provisions of section 111A and section 112A) exceeding two crore rupees, but is not covered under clauses (c) and (d), shall be applicable at the rate of fifteen per cent. of such income-tax:\" 7. All the beneficiaries are individuals and it is well-settled that the status of a trust in which all the beneficiaries are individuals would be that of an individual for the purpose of taxation. 8. We rely on the following judicial pronouncements in support of our contention: i. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Commissioner of Wealth Tax vs. Trustees of H. E. H. Nizam's Family (Remainder Wealth) Trust (1977) (108 ITR 555)… ii. The Hon'ble Calcutta High Court in CIT vs. Shri Krishna Bandar Trust (1993) (201 ITR 989)… Printed from counselvise.com Page | 9 I.T.A. No.: 1613/KOL/2024 Assessment Year: 2021-22 Pradyumna Dalmia Beneficiary Trust. iii. The Hon'ble Bombay High Court in DIT (Exemptions) vs. Shardaben Bhagubhai Mafatlal Public Charitable Trust (2001) (247 ITR 1) … iv. The Hon'ble Bombay High Court in L.R. Patel Family Trust vs. ITO (2003) (262 ITR 520) … v. The Hon'ble Delhi High Court in CIT vs. SAE Head Office Monthly Paid Employee Welfare Trust (2004) (271 ITR 159) … vi. The Hon'ble Tribunal in Sriram Trust, Hyderabad vs Income Tax Officer in Para 6 & 7 held as under – … vii. The Hon'ble Tribunal in Ujjwal Business Trust, Mumbai Vs Income Tax CPC, Bangaluru (ITA no. 602/MUM/2024) in Para 7 held as under- … viii. The Hon'ble Tribunal in Jitendra Gala Navneet Trust Vs Deputy Director of Income Tax Mumbai in Para 11 & 12 held as under – … 9. So far as the taxation of income of the Trust is concerned, Section 164(1) of the Act, as reproduced above, makes it amply clear that where the share of the beneficiaries to the Trust are indeterminate, the Trust would be taxed at maximum marginal rate. 10. Further, the tax of income shall be increased by levy of surcharge as applicable to an individual as under: … 11. The Ld. ADIT, CPC Bangalore had levied the surcharge on the income- tax of the assessee as per the rate applicable to an individual, however, he has erroneously considered the rate at 37% which is applicable for income exceeding Rs. 5 Crores, whereas the surcharge rate applicable according to the income range of the assessee Trust for the concerned AY 2021-22 is 25%. 12. This view also draws support from the speech of the Hon'ble Finance Minister which announcing the Finance Bill, 2022. In Finance Bill 2022, the Hon'ble Finance Minister proposed to rationalize surcharge by capping the surcharge rate for AOPs and surcharge on long-term capital gains at 15%. The remarks under paragraph 134 of the Budget speech are noteworthy- \"In the globalized business world, there are several works contracts whose terms and conditions mandatorily require formation of a consortium. The members in the consortium are generally companies. In such cases, the income of these AOPs has to suffer a graded surcharge upto 37 per cent, which is a lot more than the surcharge on the individual companies. Accordingly, I propose to cap the Surcharge of these AOP's at 15 per cent.\" In case of an AOP, where income of any of its members during relevant year exceeds basic exemption limit, the AOP is charged at MMR. That is to say, if the members of an AOP consists of companies, the income of the AOP is charged at MMR. The Hon'ble Finance Minister has taken due cognizance Printed from counselvise.com Page | 10 I.T.A. No.: 1613/KOL/2024 Assessment Year: 2021-22 Pradyumna Dalmia Beneficiary Trust. that while calculating tax at MMR in such a case, the AOPs have to suffer a graded surcharge upto 37 per cent. Therefore, surcharge on tax at MMR is also levied in a graded fashion which may range upto 37 Percent. 13. Section 4 of the Act provides that income shall be charged in accordance with and subject to the provisions of the Act. The levy of surcharge is governed by the Finance Act which provides for levy of surcharge in a graded manner. The surcharge rate as is applicable to an individual is prescribed under Paragraph A of Part I of The First Schedule. For income ranging between Rs. 2 Crore to 5 Crores, the applicable surcharge rate for AY 2021-22 is 25% which ought to have been applied in the assessee's case. 14. In view of the above, the rate of surcharge applicable to the assessee would be 25%, i.e. Rs. 17,00,599/- as against 37%, i.e. Rs. 25,16,886/- levied in the intimation under Section 143(1) of the Act. 15. It may also be noted that, in all earlier assessment years the surcharge had been charged in accordance with the slab rates as applicable to an individual, there being no change in the legal position, the principle of consistency should be followed. Copies of Intimation Order/Assessment Orders is being submitted for your Honour's reference. 16. It is therefore prayed that the demand of Rs.7,95,100 be deleted as CPC Bangalore erred in the facts and circumstances of the case as well as in law, by levying a surcharge at 37% whereas the income of the assessee attracted surcharge of 25%, being between 2 and 5 crores and the Ld. Assessing Officer, CPC be directed not to enforce demand on the appellant.” 8. In the course of the appeal before us it was submitted by the Ld. AR that the assessee is a private discretionary Trust and had shown income including capital gains and income from other sources. The tax was levied at maximum marginal rate as the provisions of sections 164 r.w.s. 167B of the Act were applicable and the surcharge of 15% on the capital gains was applicable and on the balance 10% surcharge was liable to be imposed. However, the Ld. Addl/JCIT(A) applied surcharge of 37%. During the course of appeal before us, the assessee relied upon the cases of Tribunal as mentioned in para 7 in support of the claim that surcharge should be leviable as per the income and not on the basis of the rate of tax applicable. Printed from counselvise.com Page | 11 I.T.A. No.: 1613/KOL/2024 Assessment Year: 2021-22 Pradyumna Dalmia Beneficiary Trust. 9. We have considered the rival submissions. In our view, the surcharge is leviable on the basis of the quantum of the income falling in the given range and not on the basis of the rate of tax applicable to the assessee, which is MMR in the instant case. During the course of the appeal before us, the assessee also relied upon the following judicial pronouncements: “1. Araadhya Jain Trust v. ADIT, СРС (2025) 212 ITD 1 (Mumbai) (Spl. Bench) 2. GJ Trust v. ΙΤΟ (2025) 174 taxmann.com 902 (Mumbai-ITAT.) 3. Swati Sarawagi Family Trust v. ACIT, Circle-7(1), Kolkata (ITA 2342/K/2024 dt. 25.4.2024) 4. Ashok Patni Family Trust v. DCIT, Circle 7, Pune (ITA 2782/Pun/2024 dt. 16.5.2024) 5. Anu Aga Family Discretionary Trust v. ITO, Ward -7(1), Pune (ITA 1259/Pun/2024 dt. 25.4.2025) 6. NIK Family Trust v. DCIT, Circle 23(1), Parimal Chamber (ITA 403/Mum/2025 dt. 8.5.2025)” 10. In the case of Swati Sarawagi Family Trust vs ACIT in ITA Nos. 2432 & 2433/KOL/2024 order dated April 25th, 2025, similar issue arose wherein the Coordinate Bench of the Tribunal has held as under: “5. We have considered the submissions made and find that the surcharge @ 10% only should have been applied as the income was below Rs. 1 Crore. For A.Y. as the total income was only Rs. 24,78,407, therefore, no surcharge was leviable. Hence, the appeals are allowed for both the assessment years and the Ld. AO is directed to apply the surcharge @10% for A.Y. 2022-23 as the income did not exceed Rs. 1.0 Crore and apply NIL surcharge for A.Y. 2023-24 as the income did not exceed Rs. 50,000/-. Hence Ground Nos. 1, 2 and 3 are allowed. Ground No. 5 is general in nature and does not require any separate adjudication. Ground No. 4 is consequential in nature and the Ld. AO is directed to charge interest as per law on the tax levied. 6. In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed.” 11. Since the income of the assessee during the year was ₹3,04,31,120/- which comprised of capital gains of ₹2,32,75,342/- and income from other sources of ₹71,55,778/-, therefore surcharge as applicable for capital gains @15% was liable to be paid on the capital Printed from counselvise.com Page | 12 I.T.A. No.: 1613/KOL/2024 Assessment Year: 2021-22 Pradyumna Dalmia Beneficiary Trust. gains of ₹ 2,32,75,342/- and surcharge on the balance amount was liable to be paid @10% as the income did not exceed ₹1 Crore. Hence, following the judicial pronouncements cited (supra), the Ld. AO is hereby directed to recompute the tax liability for applying the surcharge as above and the findings of the Ld. CIT(A) in this regard are reversed and Ground Nos. 1 and 2 are allowed while Ground No. 3 being general in nature does not require any separate adjudication. 12. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed. Order pronounced in the open Court on 11th August, 2025. Sd/- Sd/- [Pradip Kumar Choubey] [Rakesh Mishra] Judicial Member Accountant Member Dated: 11.08.2025 Bidhan (Sr. P.S.) Printed from counselvise.com Page | 13 I.T.A. No.: 1613/KOL/2024 Assessment Year: 2021-22 Pradyumna Dalmia Beneficiary Trust. Copy of the order forwarded to: 1. Pradyumna Dalmia Beneficiary Trust, 4th Floor, Suite S401, Ideal Plaza, 11/1, Sarat Bose Road, Ballygunge, Kolkata, West Bengal, 700020. 2. ADIT(CPC), Bengaluru. 3. Addl/JCIT(A)-1, Lucknow. 4. CIT- 5. CIT(DR), Kolkata Benches, Kolkata. 6. Guard File. //True copy // By order Assistant Registrar ITAT, Kolkata Benches Kolkata Printed from counselvise.com "