2012 (6) TMI 202

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... Revenue has preferred this appeal challenging the order passed by the Tribunal which held that proviso to Section 113 which was inserted by the Finance Act, 2002 with effect from 1-6-2002 does not have retrospective application. Hence, the surcharge on the assessee is not leviable and therefore it directed the deletion of the surcharge, in fact the Apex Court in the case of CIT v. Suresh N. Gupta .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ands. 38. There is one more reason for rejecting the above submission. Prior to 1st June, 2002, in several cases, tax was prescribed sometimes in the 1961 Act and sometimes in FA and often in both. This made liability uncertain. In the present case, however, the rate of tax in case of block assessment at 60 per cent was prescribed by S. 113 but the year of FA imposing surcharge was not stipulated .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ing to the aforesaid Supreme Court Judgment, have referred the said matter to a Larger Bench. Accordingly, the matter is referred to the Larger Bench. Under those circumstances, as the law stands today the surcharge is payable by the assessee. In the event the Larger Bench of the Supreme Court reverses the aforesaid Judgment holding surcharge is not leviable, the assessee is absolved of the liabil .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X