9911796707
TMI Blog2011 (2) TMI 365X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the Act and surcharge on income tax would be imposable even in those cases where search had taken place prior to 1.6.2002 of the particular year in which search had taken place - Therefore, question of its retrospective effect did not arise - Hence, the appeal is allowed in favour of the Revenue. - 126 of 2004 - - - Dated:- 22-2-2011 - MR. JUSTICE ADARSH KUMAR GOEL, MR. JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR MITTAL, JJ. Mr. Denesh Goyal, Standing Counsel for the appellant-Revenue. Mr. Rajiv Sharma, Advocate for the respondent-assessee. AJAY KUMAR MITTAL, J. 1. This appeal under Section 260A of the Income-Tax Act, 1961 (for short the Act ) has been filed by the Revenue against the order dated 28.11.2003, passed by the Income Tax ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... appeal before the Tribunal. The order dated 18.7.2002 was, however later on rectified by the CIT(A) vide order dated 27.9.2002 and surcharge at the rate of 10% was held leviable for Assessment year 2000-2001. The assessee raised a grievance against the same by filing appeal to the Tribunal. The Tribunal allowed the appeal of the assessee and dismissed that of the Revenue vide order dated 28.11.2003 giving rise to the instant appeal. 5. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record. 6. The point for consideration in this appeal is, whether the surcharge on income tax in terms of Section 113 of the Act would be leviable where search and seizure had taken place prior to 1.6.2002. 7. Learned counsel for ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 58BC. 9. Accordingly, the issue stands concluded by the aforesaid decision of the Supreme Court wherein it has been laid down that the proviso to Section 113, inserted vide Finance Act, 2002, with effect from June 1, 2002, was applicable to block assessments under Chapter XIV-B of the Act and surcharge on income tax would be imposable even in those cases where search had taken place prior to 1.6.2002 according to the Finance Act of the particular year in which search had taken place. It has further been held that the proviso was only clarificatory and, therefore, question of its retrospective effect did not arise. 10. In view of the above, the appeal is allowed and the substantial question of law is answered in favour of the Revenu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
