2015 (1) TMI 927 - HC - Income Tax

Levy of surcharge - AO charged surcharge at the rate of 10% under section 113 of the Act - CIT(A) deleted the addition - Held that - CIT(A) was justified in deleting the surcharge levied by the Assessing Officer. The Tribunal confirming the decision of the CIT(A) came to the conclusion that for the block period under consideration there was no proviso to section 113 of the Act. We are not giving any elaborate reasons in view of the decision of the Apex Court in Vatika Township 2014 (9) TMI 576 - SUPREME COURT . The Tribunal is justified in coming to the conclusion that surcharge could not be levied, as, on the date of search, such provision for levy of surcharge was not there on the Statute Book. - Decided in favour of assessee.

Summary

Issues:
Interpretation of surcharge provision in block assessment under Income Tax Act, 1961.

Analysis:
1. The appellant challenged the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal regarding the levy of surcharge under section 113 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for the block assessment years 1990-91 to 1999-2000.

2. The Central Board of Direct Taxes issued a notice under section 158BC to the assessee for filing returns for the block period. The assessing officer imposed a surcharge of 10%, which was later deleted by the CIT (Appeals) partially.

3. The Tribunal dismissed the revenue's appeal, leading to the present Tax Appeal. The main question of law was whether surcharge could be levied for the block assessment period when there was no specific provision in the statute at the time of the search.

4. The High Court referred to the decision in Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Vatika Township P. Ltd, where the Supreme Court clarified the history of surcharge provisions and the ambiguity surrounding its application in block assessments.

5. The advocate for the revenue could not dispute the Supreme Court's decision or present any contrary argument, leading the Court to consider the issue in favor of the assessee based on the Vatika Township case.

6. The Court held that the CIT (Appeals) rightly deleted the surcharge as there was no proviso to section 113 of the Act for the relevant block period. Citing the Supreme Court's decision, the Court concluded that the surcharge could not be levied retrospectively.

7. Consequently, the Court upheld the Tribunal's decision and dismissed the Tax Appeal, affirming that the surcharge provision was not applicable during the block assessment period due to the absence of a specific statutory provision.

This detailed analysis of the judgment highlights the interpretation of the surcharge provision in block assessments under the Income Tax Act, providing a comprehensive understanding of the legal issues involved and the court's decision based on relevant legal principles and precedents.