9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (8) TMI 550X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... vide its order in the following manner: "3. Brief facts of the case are that during the appellate proceedings before Ld. CIT(A) assessee took an additional ground challenging the levy of surcharge u/s 113 of the Act. The contention of the assessee before Id. CIT(A) was that while finalizing the block assessment the A.O. has computed the tax payable on the total undisclosed income assessed u/s-15SBC at the rate of 67.2 percent, working out a charge of income tax at 60 percent and levying surcharge thereon at 12 percent of the income tax u/s 113 of the Act. It was further submitted that Section 113 as it stood until 31st May, 2002 did not have any provision in regard to levy of surcharge on the flat rate of income tax at 60 percent. It was o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... (SC) the view taken against the assessee is required to be corrected. The Applicant in the Application has stated as under, relevant portion reproduced: "3. The assessee wishes to submit that before the learned CIT(A) it had raised the additional ground challenging the levy of surcharge u/s. 113 of the IT. Act, pointing out that the provision levying surcharge was introduced by the Finance Act 2002 w.e.f. 1-6-2002 and therefore there was no provision for levy of surcharge u/s. 113 during A.Y. 2000-01, being the relevant year when the search was initiated u/s. 132 on 16-11-1999. The learned CIT(A) had invited the assessee's attention to the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in CIT vs. Suresh N. Gupta 297 ITR 322 (SC) wherein the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... urthermore, an amendment made to a taxing statute can be said to be intended to remove 'hardships' only of the assessee, not of the Department. On the contrary, imposing 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. The aforesaid discursive of ours also makes it obvious that the conclusion of the Division Bench in Suresh N. Gupta treating the proviso as clarificatory and giving it retrospective effect is not a correct conclusion. Said judgment is accordingly overruled, As a result of the aforesaid discussion, the appeals filed by the Income Tax Department are hereby dismissed. Appeals of the assessees are allowed ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f existed since inception of the enactment. In the decisions as cited above a view has been expressed by Hon'ble Courts that an order of the Supreme Court; although a subsequent decision in point of time; but binding on the Tribunal; precedent cited of Saurashtra Kutch Stock Exchange, 305 ITR 227 (SC) The Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that even a subsequent decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court is binding on the Tribunal and if the decision of the Tribunal is contrary to the subsequent decision of the Supreme Court then such decision of the Tribunal give rise to a mistake apparent required to be rectified. 5.1 The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Vatika Township Pvt. Ltd. (supra) has held that the proviso appended to S ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
