TMI Blog2015 (8) TMI 550X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rising out of CO No.177, 178, 179, 202 & 203/Ahd/2009 - - - Dated:- 23-1-2015 - Mukul Kr Shrawat And N S Saini JJ. For the Appellant Rep by: Shri V K Singh, Sr DR For the Respondent : Shri Mukesh Patel, AR ORDER Per: Mukul Kr Shrawat: All these Applications have been filed by the Applicants on 20th of October, 2014 emanating from a common order of the Tribunal dated 28.02.2013. The Tribunal has decided the Cross Objections of the Assessee 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 whi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... onducted prior to that date as it was clarificatory and curative in nature, decided the issue against the assessee. Since, ld. CIT(A) has followed Hon'ble Apex Court decision in the case of CIT Vs. Suresh N. Gupta (supra) while deciding the issue against the assessee, we feel no need to interfere with the order passed by him and the same is hereby upheld. 2. Now, the Applicant has stated that in view of the decision of Vatika Township Pvt. Ltd., 367 ITR 466 (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 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in the case of C/T vs. Vatika Township (P) Ltd. [2014] 49 taxmann.com 249 (SC) has held in favour of the assessee as under: 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 operation. The amendment neither purports to be merely clarificatory nor is there any material to suggest that it was intended by Parliament. Furthermore, 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 Parl ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... a mistake of the Tribunal because the decision of Vatika Township (P) Ltd. (supra) was not at all cited before the Tribunal being pronounced on 15th of September, 2014, however the order of the Tribunal is dated 28.02.2013. 5. Heard both the sides. Although it is true that the order of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Vatika Township (P) Ltd. (supra) is now pronounced on 15th of September, 2015, admittedly after the decision of the Tribunal but laid down the law of the land as if 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 cite ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
