9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (2) TMI 588X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... a retrospective levy on the assessee would have caused undue hardship and for that reason Parliament specifically chose to make the proviso effective from 1.6.2002. See Commissioner of Income Tax (Central)-I v. Vatika Township Private Limited [2014 (9) TMI 576 - SUPREME COURT] - Decided in favour of the assessee. - T.C.(A).No.1453 of 2007 - - - Dated:- 2-2-2015 - MR. R.SUDHAKAR AND MRS. S.VIMALA, JJ. For the Appellant : Mr.M.Swaminathan Standing Counsel For the Respondent : Mr.Venkat Narayanan for M/s.Subbaraya Aiyar JUDGMENT (Delivered by R.SUDHAKAR, J.) The Revenue has filed this appeal assailing the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal 'D' Bench, Chennai, dated 20.7.2007 made in I.T.(SS)A.No.60/ ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ncome Tax (Appeals), who confirmed the order passed by the Assessing Officer and upheld the levy of surcharge. 2.3. On further appeal by the assessee, the Tribunal held that since the search in the present case was conducted prior to 1.6.2002, namely, prior to the introduction of proviso to Section 113 of the Act, surcharge is not leviable on tax payable on the block assessment. 2.4. Calling in question the said order, the Revenue has filed this appeal on the questions of law, referred supra. 3. We have heard Mr.M.Swaminathan, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the Revenue and Mr.Venkat Narayanan, learned counsel appearing for the assessee and perused the orders passed by the Tribunal and the authorities below. 4. Th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... expressed its doubts about the correctness of the view taken in Suresh N. Gupta and directed the Registry to place the matter before Hon'ble the Chief Justice of India for constitution of a larger Bench. The Constitution Bench answered the reference in the following manner: 38. When we examine the insertion of proviso in Section 113 of the Act, keeping in view the aforesaid principles, our irresistible conclusion is that the intention of the legislature was to make it prospective in nature. .... 39. The charge in respect of the surcharge, having been created for the first time by the insertion of the proviso to Section 113, is clearly a substantive provision and hence is to be construed prospective in operat ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
