TMI Blog2020 (2) TMI 463X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e (P.) Ltd . - Tax Case Appeal No.1159 of 2010 - - - Dated:- 28-1-2020 - Dr. Justice Vineet Kothari And Mr. Justice R. Suresh Kumar For the Appellant : Mr.M.P.Senthil Kumar For the Respondent : Mrs.S.Premalatha Junior Standing Counsel JUDGMENT DR.VINEET KOTHARI, J. The Assessee V.Sekaran has filed the present appeal against the order dated 10.12.2009 passed by the learned Income Tax Appellate Tribunal whereby the Tribunal decided the question against the Assessee on the issue of levy of surcharge in the case of block assessment, in view of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT Vs. Suresh N.Gupta (297 ITR 32) . 2.The said judgment of Suresh N.Gupta came to be reversed later on by ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... issued after the passing of the Finance Act, 2002, by which amendment to Section 113 was made. In this circular, various amendments to the Income Tax Act are discussed amply demonstrating as to which amendments are clarificatory/retrospective in operation and which amendments are prospective. For example, explanation to Section 158BB is stated to be clarificatory in nature. Likewise, it is mentioned that amendments in Section 145 whereby provisions of that section are made applicable to block assessments is made clarificatory and would take effect retrospectively from 1st day of July, 1995. When it comes to amendment to Section 113 of the Act, this very circular provides that the said amendment along with amendments in Section 158BE, would ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... mposing a retrospective levy on the assessee would have caused undue hardship and for that reason Parliament specifically chose to make the proviso effective from 1.6.2002. 40.The aforesaid discursive of ours also makes it obvious that the conclusion of the Division Bench in Suresh N. Gupta treating the proviso as clarificatory and giving it retrospective effect is not a correct conclusion. Said judgment is accordingly overruled. 41.As a result of the aforesaid discussion, the appeals filed by the Income Tax Department are hereby dismissed. Appeals of the assessees are allowed deleting the surcharge levied by the assessing officer for this block assessment pertaining to the period prior to 1st June, 2002. 3.In view of th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
