TMI Blog2008 (8) TMI 939X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sessee, and setting aside the orders of the Assessing Officer, and the Commissioner, Income Tax (Appeals), and thereby deleting the surcharge, as levied under Section 113 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The appeal was admitted on 04.04.2006, by framing a substantial question, reading as under :- Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in holding that levy of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y of that order, which was required to be filed in this appeal, has not been filed. However, learned counsel made available for our perusal the certified copy thereof, and a look at that judgement shows, that in Para 3, the contention of the assessee was noticed, about the proviso to Section 113 being not retrospective, and for that purpose, two judgements of Hon'ble Supreme Court were cited, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... gorical to held, that surcharge is to be levied only on cases where searches have been conducted after 01.06.2002. Then reference is made to a Circular of CBDT dated 04.08.1995, and thus the appeal was dismissed. The learned Tribunal has found, that it is undisputed fact, that the amended provision came into force w.e.f. 01.06.2002 only, and there cannot be two opinions, that non-charging of su ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tive, and held it to be clarificatory and retrospective. That is the judgement rendered in the Year 2008. Even without anything else, even this judgement does make it clear, that at least, on the date, when the Tribunal passed the impugned order, the question about retrospective applicability of the amendment, made in Section 113, was very much a debatable question. In that view of the matte ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
