2007 (2) TMI 182 - HC - Income Tax

Summary

Issues involved:
The judgment involves the issue of whether surcharge can be levied for block assessments conducted before the introduction of the proviso to section 113 of the Income-tax Act, 1961.

Issue 1:
The main issue in this case was whether surcharge could be levied for block assessments if the search was conducted before the introduction of the proviso to section 113 of the Act. The Tribunal held that since the search was conducted prior to the introduction of the proviso, surcharge was not imposable. The Revenue appealed this decision, questioning the applicability of surcharge to block assessments conducted before the introduction of the proviso.

Issue 2:
Another issue raised was whether the levy of surcharge prior to the introduction of the proviso was complex and whether the levy failed as a result. However, the court did not delve into this issue as it found that surcharge was not applicable to block assessments conducted before the introduction of the proviso to section 113.

The judgment delivered by the High Court of Madras pertained to a tax case appeal against the order of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal. The search conducted by Revenue officials under section 132 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, resulted in a block assessment being framed for the block period 1988-89 to 1998-99. The order passed for the block period levied a surcharge at 10 per cent on the tax payable. The Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) allowed the appeal by the assessee, deleting the levy of surcharge. The Tribunal, on appeal by the Revenue, held that since the search was conducted before the introduction of the proviso to section 113, surcharge was not imposable. The court referred to a similar case decided by the Punjab and Haryana High Court and agreed with their decision. As the search in the present case was conducted before the introduction of the proviso to section 113, the court held that surcharge was not applicable to block assessments in such cases. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed as no substantial question of law arose for consideration.