Case Details

Citation(s)
2009 SLG 2275 2009 SLD 2275 (2009) 308 ITR 69
Delhi High Court
CM No. 4222 OF 2008 IN IT APPEAL No. 366 OF 2008 SEPTEMBER 8, 2008
BADAR DURREZ AHMED AND RAJIV SHAKDHER, JJ.

Deprecated: str_replace(): Passing null to parameter #3 ($subject) of type array|string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 395

Commissioner of IncomE tax

v.

M.S. Aggarwal*

Law:

Section:

Section 113, read with section 154 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 - Block assessment in search cases - Tax in case of - Block period 1-4-1989 to 15-1-2000 - In assessee's case search was conducted on 25-11-1999 - Issue came up before Tribunal was whether surcharge could be levied in case of search carried out prior to 1-6-2002 - Tribunal took view that proviso inserted to section 113 by Finance Act, 2002, with effect from 1-6-2002, was prospective and that surcharge could only be levied in respect of searches conducted after 1-6-2002 - Another point on which Tribunal agreed with conclusion arrived at by Commissioner (Appeals) was that issue with regard to levy of surcharge was debatable when Assessing Officer passed his order under section 154 - Thus, Tribunal concluded that rectification proceedings were not in order and dismissed revenue's appeal - Whether in view of decision in CIT v. Suresh N. Gupta [2008] 297 ITR 322/ 166 Taxman 313 (SC), it could be concluded that introduction of proviso to section 113 by Finance Act, 2002 was only clarificatory in nature, and, therefore, said proviso would be applicable to searches conducted prior to 1-6-2002 as well - Held, yes - Whether as regards issue relating to initiation of action under section 154, since Commissioner (Appeals) as well as Tribunal having examined matter in great detail concluded that said issue was debatable one, provisions of section 154 could not be invoked - Held, yes - Whether, on basis of said jurisdictional ground, Tribunal had rightly dismissed revenue's appeal - Held, yes CASE REFERRED TO CIT v. Suresh N. Gupta [2008] 297 ITR 322/ 166 Taxman 313 (SC) [Para 5]. Ms. Prem Lata Bansal for the Appellant. Salil Kapoor and Ms. Sena K. for the Respondent. ORDER CM No. 4222/2008 (Condonation of delay) in ITA No. 366/2008 1. For the reasons stated in the application and on submissions made by the learned counsel for the appellant, this application for condonation of delay is allowed. The delay is condoned. This application stands disposed of. ITA No. 366/2008 2. This appeal pertains to the block assessment period 1-4-1989 to 15-1-2000 and is directed against the order dated 5-1-2007 passed by the…
🔒
Continue readingLogin or create an account to access the complete content.Login / Register

Deprecated: trim(): Passing null to parameter #1 ($string) of type string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 492