TMI Blog2016 (7) TMI 1542X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t on the basis of the assessed undisclosed income of the Respondent assessee - HELD THAT:- Levy of surcharge in case of block assessments pertaining to the period prior to 01-06-2002 has been settled by the latest decision of CIT Vs. Vatika Township Pvt. Ltd. [ 2014 (9) TMI 576 - SUPREME COURT] as held in the said decision that though provision for surcharge under the Finance Acts has been in existence since 1995, the charge of surcharge with respect to block assessments, having been created for the first time by the insertion of the proviso to section 113 of the I.T. Act, 1961 by the Finance Act, 2002, it is clearly a substantive provision and is to be construed as prospective in operation. The amendment neither purports to be merely clar ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ffect in the grounds raised by the Revenue is below ₹ 10 lakhs. Therefore, in view of the CBDT Circular No.21/2015 dated 10-12-2015 the appeal filed by the Revenue is not maintainable and should be dismissed. 3 The Ld. Departmental Representative fairly conceded that the tax effect in the instant appeal filed by the Revenue is admittedly below ₹ 10 lakhs. 4. After hearing the rival contentions made by both the sides, we find the tax effect in the instant appeal filed by the Revenue is admittedly below ₹ 10 lakhs. Therefore, in view of Circular No.21/2015 dated 10-12-2015 of CBDT raising the monetary limit for filing of appeals by the Department before the Tribunal, which also applies to pending app ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... urcharge under the Finance Acts has been in existence since 1995, the charge of surcharge with respect to block assessments, having been created for the first time by the insertion of the proviso to section 113 of the I.T. Act, 1961 by the Finance Act, 2002, it is clearly a substantive provision and is to be construed as prospective in operation. The amendment neither purports to be merely clarificatory nor is there any material to suggest that it was intended by Parliament. Accordingly, it was held that surcharge will not be applicable to block assessments pertaining to period prior to 01-06-2002. Since the block period in the instant case is admittedly for the period 01-04-1989 to 08-121999, i.e. prior to 01-06-2002, therefore, surchar ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 11. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that the delay in receiving of the documents from the department for preparing the return for the block period should be excluded for computing the period of 30 days. Relying on the decision of the Pune Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Mr. Mukund Krishnaji Purandare and Viceversa vide ITA No.608/PN/2003 and CO No.09/PN/2004 he submitted that under identical facts and circumstances the Tribunal has restored the issue of levy of interest u/s.158BFA(1) to the file of the AO for fresh consideration. He accordingly submitted that he has no objection if the matter is restored to the file of the AO for deciding the issue in the light of the direction of the Tribunal. 12. The Ld. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nterest is restored to the file of the A.O for reconsideration in the light of the principles laid down in the case of Mesco Airlines Ltd.(Supra). The Ld. D.R. has no objection. We, accordingly, restore the issue of levy of interest u/s. 158BFA(1) to the file of the A.O. for fresh consideration. Accordingly, Ground No. 2 is allowed for statistical purposes. 14. Respectfully following the decision of the Coordinate Bench of the Tribunal cited (Supra) we restore the issue to the file of the AO with a direction to decide the issue of levy of interest u/s.158BFA(1) in the light of the decision of the Tribunal and in accordance with law after giving due opportunity of being heard to the assessee. We hold and direct accordingly. Grou ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
