AOPs Taxed at Maximum Marginal Rate Must Apply Surcharge Based on Finance Act Slabs: ITAT Panaji

In a significant ruling concerning the taxation of Association of Persons (AOP), the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), Panaji Bench , has provided clarity on the application of the Maximum Marginal Rate (MMR) and the subsequent computation of surcharge. While affirming that societies with indeterminate beneficiary interests are subject to MMR, the tribunal held that the Revenue cannot arbitrarily impose a flat maximum surcharge rate, mandating instead that it be determined by the slabs prescribed in the relevant Finance Act.

Case Background: The Temple Society Dispute

The appellant, Shri Rampurush Mandir Society , a religious society in Goa, challenged the assessments for the Assessment Years 2021-22 and 2022-23. The society, which lacks registration under Sections 12A or 80G of the Income Tax Act, 1961 , maintained that its income—derived from temple activities and member donations—should be taxed at individual slab rates.

The National Faceless e-Assessment Centre (AO) had processed the returns by applying the Maximum Marginal Rate (MMR) and the highest possible surcharge, citing that the society’s members had indeterminate shares. The dispute escalated through the CIT(A) before reaching the ITAT.

Arguments: The Tug-of-War over Tax Rates

The assessee contended that provisions of Section 167B (which triggers MMR for AOPs with indeterminate shares) and Section 164 were misapplied. They argued that their structure did not warrant such punitive taxation. Conversely, the Revenue maintained that because the society functioned as a discretionary entity—where individual member interests could not be definitively determined—the application of MMR and the highest surcharge was legally sound under Section 164(2).

Legal Analysis: Unlocking the Surcharge Mystery

The ITAT Bench, comprising Pavan Kumar Gadale and G. D. Padmahshali, weighed the society's status against settled legal precedents. The Tribunal emphasized that under Section 164(2), income derived from property held under trust, in the absence of registration under Sections 11 or 12, naturally falls under the scope of MMR.

However, the Bench made a crucial distinction regarding the surcharge. Relying on the recent Special Bench decision in Araadhya Jain Trust Vs ITO , the Tribunal held that while the principal tax rate is capped at MMR, the surcharge cannot ignore the specific slab structure provided by the Legislature in the Finance Act.

Key Observations

The tribunal's ruling underscored the necessity of statutory adherence in assessment:

• On Trust Income: “The income of the assessee was taxable @MMR... rightfully offered to taxation by the appellant in its respective return but applying normal rate of taxation.”
• On Statutory Interpretation: “The ‘surcharge’ (if any) to be charged thereon shall be computed on the income tax having reference to the slab rates prescribed in the relevant Finance Act under the heading ‘surcharge on income tax’.”
• On Judicial Discipline: “In view therefore without multiplying the authority on the subject matter respectfully following the special bench decision we vacate the application of incorrect ‘surcharge’.”

The Verdict: A Balanced Conclusion

The ITAT partly allowed the appeals. While the society remains liable for the Maximum Marginal Rate on its income, the Revenue’s demand for a blanket high-rate surcharge was struck down. This ruling serves as a vital reminder to tax authorities that even when an entity is deemed liable for high-tier taxation, the computation of surcharges must strictly conform to the slab progressions dictated by Parliament, ensuring that tax enforcement remains within the bounds of fairness and legislative intent.