TMI Blog2011 (7) TMI 346X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... kgrounds. Though facts are different in the appeals, issue being considered in these appeals is common. As pointed out by the learned counsel for the Revenue, the issue is squarely covered by the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Commissioner of Income-Tax vs. Suresh N. Gupta reported in [2008] 297 ITR 322 (SC). 2. For the purpose of this order, we may record the brief facts as arising in Tax Appeal No.823 of 2008. This appeal is directed against the judgment of the Tribunal dated 9.2.2007. The sole question pressed by the Revenue in this appeal is with respect to the surcharge on the undisclosed income of the assessee for the block period of 1991-92 to 2001-02. 3. Search was carried out in the premises of the assessee on 16 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f the Act. It is further the case of the Revenue that the levy of surcharge is indicated in the Finance Act from the year 1999 onwards and that therefore subsequent amendments in Section 113 of the Act with effect from 1.6.2002 were only by way of clarification and in no manner effect the charging provisions. While admitting this appeal Division Bench of this Court had formulated following substantial questions of law". "(1) Whether on the facts and in circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal is justified on facts and in law in holding the proviso to Section 113 of the I.T. Act, 1961 is not applicable for block period consisting of A.Yrs. 1991-1992 to 2001-02? (2) Whether the 'Proviso' to Section 113 of the I.T. act, 1961 i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t was aware of the rate of tax prescribed by section 113 and yet in the various Finance Acts, Parliament has sought to levy surcharge on the tax in the case of block assessment. In the present case, the Assessing Officer has applied the rate of surcharge at 17 per cent. which rate finds place in paragraph A of Part I of the First Schedule to the said Finance Act of 2001, therefore, surcharge leviable under the Finance Act was a distinct charge, not dependant for its leviability on the assessee's liability to pay income-tax but on assessed tax. 23. For the aforementioned reasons, we hold that even without the proviso to section 113 (inserted vide Finance Act, 2002, with effect from June 1, 2002), the Finance Act 2001, was applicable to b ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o in section 113 only with effect from June 1, 2002. Therefore, according to the assessee, the proviso cannot be interpreted as retrospective. 25. We find no merit in the above arguments. Both, the Finance Acts of 2000 and 2001, indicated that a substantive charge was created in respect of the income-tax to be levied. Both these Acts prescribed the rates of sur-charge. The said surcharge did not depend for its leviability on the assessee's liability to pay income-tax but on the assessed tax. The assessee has relied upon the above anomalies in support of their contention that such anomalies made the charge ineffective. In our view, such submission amounts to begging the question. According to the assessee, prior to June 1, 2002, the posi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... stood initiated under section 158BC." 6. The issues arising in the appeal are thus squarely covered by the above mentioned decision of the Apex Court in the case Commissioner of Income-Tax vs. Suresh N. Gupta (supra). 7. The questions are, therefore, required to be answered in favour of the Revenue. 8. We find that in other Tax Appeals, under similar facts, same issues arise with minor modifications due to the changes in the block years in consideration. The questions might have been framed in slightly different languages, nevertheless, the central issue is the same. In the result, all Tax Appeals are allowed answering the questions in favour of the Revenue. To the said extent respective impugned orders of the Tribunal stand re ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
