##PAGE1##

ITA No.4372-4374/Del/2025

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL

DELHI “A” BENCH: NEW DELHI

BEFORE SHRI ANUBHAV SHARMA, JUDICIAL MEMBER &

SHRI MANISH AGARWAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER

ITA No.4372 to 4374/Del/2025

[Assessment Year : 2021-22 to 2023-24]

Vihar Trust vs DCIT

B-60-61, C/0-Bajaj Auto Circle-49(1)

Limited, Naraina Civic Centre

Industrial Area, Phase-II, New Delhi

New Delhi-110028.

PAN-AAATV0306N

APPELLANT RESPONDENT

Appellant by Shri Vasanti Ben Patel, Adv. &

Shri Mahender Gohel, Adv.

Respondent by Shri Krishna Kumar Ramawat,

Sr. DR

Date of Hearing 01.12.2025

Date of Pronouncement 29.01.2026

ORDER

PER MANISH AGARWAL, AM :

The captioned appeals are filed by assessee against the different

orders, dated 06.06.2025, 10.06.2025 & 15.06.2025 passed by Ld.

Commissioner of Income Tax (A)/ADDL/JCIT(A), Ranchi [“Ld.CIT(A)”]

u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [“the Act”] arising out of

intimation order dated 13.10.2022, 15.06.2023 & 06.06.2024 passed

u/s 143(1) of the Act pertaining to assessment year 2021-22 to 2023-

24 respectively.

Page | 1

ITA No.4372-4374/Del/2025

2. As all the three captioned appeals filed by the assessee have

similar issues which are inter-linked, inter-connected and this fact

has been admitted by both the parties during the course of hearing

before us, therefore, all the appeals filed by the assessee are decided

by a common order.

3. Brief facts of the case are that assessee company is a charitable

trust assessed as AOP (trust) and not claimed any benefit u/s 11 of

the Act. The tax has been paid at the slab rate applicable to the

individual however, the while processing the return of income for all

the three years, CPC has charged the tax at Maximum Marginal Rate

(“MMR”) and levy surcharge. The assessee claimed that since the

assessee has surrendered the registration u/s 12A of the Act and

therefore, its income is chargeable to tax at the rate prescribed for

individuals and HUF’s. It is further submitted that CBDT vide

Circular No.320 dated 11.01.1982 has stated that where the share of

the member of the trust is not defined, the tax has to be charged at

the normal rate applicable to Individuals /HUF and not as per

marginal rate.

4. Ld.AR for the assessee submits that said circular is still in

operation and therefore, the tax has to be charged at a normal rate

of tax. In this regard, reliance is placed on the following judgements:-

(i) Shalmali Khasbardar Foundation v. ITO (Exemption) ITA

No.: 3811/Mum/2024-Mumbai-Paper-book Page No. 81 to

91

Page | 2

ITA No.4372-4374/Del/2025

(ii) Association of Interlocking Surgeons v. ITO (2025) 172

taxmann.com 9 (Pune) - Paper-book Page No. 92 to 99.

(iii) Mahakavi Edasseri Smarka Trust v. ITоє (2024)

taxmann.com 44 (Cochin) - Paper-book Page No. 100 to 104.

(iv) Jain Sangh Parabdi Khayu Trustee v. DCIT, CPC Bangalore

ITA No.: 353-354/AHD/2021-Paper-book Page No. 105 to

109.

5. On the other hand, Ld. Sr. DR for the Revenue supported the

orders of the lower authorities.

6. Heard the contentions of both parties and perused the material

available on record. The sole dispute in this case is with respect to

charging of tax whether it is on Maximum Marginal Rate (“MMR”) or

as per normal rates of tax as applicable on Individual and HUF. The

Co-ordinate bench of the Tribunal in the case of Vindhya Trust in ITA

No.131/Del/2025 order dated 23.07.2025 has dealt with the issue

and decided the same in favour of the assessee by making following

observations:-

“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 against the assessee’s applicable

tax slab rates in the case of an individual and also levied surcharge @

37% instead of 15% applicable to the assessee.

3. Aggrieved, assessee preferred an appeal befor