TMI Blog2015 (1) TMI 197X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tially, this surcharge was levied only on the income of companies i.e. corporate entities incorporated under the Indian Companies Act by specified surcharge at the rate of 15% in the Finance Act, 1996, which was reduced to 7.50% in the Finance Act, 1997 - in the next two Finance Acts i.e. 1998 and 1999, there was no surcharge levied even in the cases of companies - However, by Finance Act, 2000, surcharge at a flat rate of 10% came to be levied in respect of individuals, HUF, BOI, AOP as well as co-operative societies, partnership firms, local authorities and also the companies - in subsequent years, the rates at which the surcharge is levied on the entities are of varying nature. Where a benefit is conferred by a legislation, the rule a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... TA No. Assessment Year 419/2007 11/08/06 129/Ahd/2002 1990-91 to 26.11.1999 1393/2007 30.11.2005 157/Ahd/2003 1991-92 to 22.11.2000 1394/2007 30.11.2005 158/Ahd/2003 1991-92 to 22.11.2000 1431/2007 02/12/05 339/Ahd/2003 1991-92 to 17.08.2000 1432/2007 02/12/05 338/Ahd/2003 1991-92 to 17.08.2000 1433/2007 02/12/05 337/Ahd/2003 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... residential and business premises of the assessee under section 132 of the Act. The assessee filed return for the block period within 45 days of receipt of notice disclosing total undisclosed income. The Assessing Officer determined total income and charged income tax on the said income and also imposed surcharge @ 17% as per the First Schedule of Finance Act. On appeal the CIT (Appeals) held partly allowed the appeals deleting certain addition and surcharge levied by the Assessing Officer. 3. On appeal before the Tribunal, by impugned order, the Tribunal upheld the orders passed by CIT(A) and dismissed the appeals of the Revenue. 4. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned order passed by the Tribunal, the revenue has prefe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... k assessment with the addition of levy of surcharge, in the absence of proviso to Section 113? In Suresh N. Gupta itself, it was acknowledged and admitted that the position prior to the amendment of Section 113 of the Act whereby the proviso was added, whether surcharge was payable in respect of block assessment or not, was totally ambiguous and unclear. The Court pointed out that some assessing officers had taken the view that no surcharge is leviable. Others were at a loss to apply a particular rate of surcharge as they were not clear as to which Finance Act, prescribing such rates, was applicable. It is a matter of common knowledge and is also pointed out that the surcharge varies from year to year. However, the assessing officers were i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , again makes the position clear that surcharge in respect of block assessment of undisclosed income was made prospective. Such a stipulation is contained in second proviso to subsection (3) of Section 2 of Finance Act, 2003. This proviso reads as under: Provided further that the amount of incometax computed in accordance with the provisions of section 113 shall be increased by a surcharge for purposes of the Union as provided in Paragraph A, B, C, D or E, as the case may be, of Part III of the First Schedule of the Finance Act of the year in which the search is initiated under section 132 or requisition is made under section 132A of the income-tax Act. Addition of this proviso in the Finance Act, 2003 further makes it c ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ase of Vatika Township (Supra), the question which is raised in the present appeals is required to be answered in favour of the assessee. We are not giving any elaborate reasons for the same as in the case of Vatika Township (Supra) it is held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that where a benefit is conferred by a legislation, the rule against a retrospective construction is different. If a legislation confers a benefit on some persons but without inflicting a corresponding detriment on some other person or on the public generally, and where to confer such benefit appears to have been the legislators object, then the presumption would be that such a legislation, giving it a purposive construction, would warrant it to be given a retrospectiv ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
