Case Details

Citation(s)
2014 SLG 2242 2014 SLD 2242 (2014) 367 ITR 466
Supreme Court of India
Civil Appeal Nos. 8750 of 2014 & Others, SEPTEMBER 15, 2014
R.M. LODHA, CJI., JAGDISH SINGH KHEHAR, J. CHELAMESWAR, A.K. SIKRI AND ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN, JJ
B.V. Balaram Das, and Ashwani Bhardwaj, Advocates for the Petitioner. Bhargava V. Desai, Senthil Jagadeesan, Ms. A. Subhashini, and Mrs. Anil Katiyar, Advocates for the
Respondent

Civil Appeal Nos. 8750 of 2014 & Others, sepTEMBER 15, 2014Commissioner of Income Tax (Central)I, New Delhiv.Vatika Township (P.) Ltd

Law:

Section:

JUDGMENT A.K. Sikri, J. - Delay condoned. 2. Leave granted in all these matters. 3. In these batch of appeals, most of which are preferred by the Commissioner(s) of Income Tax (hereinafter referred to as 'the Department'), with the exception of few appeals filed by the assessees, the question of law which has fallen for consideration is as to whether the proviso appended to Section 113 of the Income Tax Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') which was inserted in that Section by the Finance Act, 2002 is to operate prospectively or is clarificatory and curative in nature and, therefore, has retrospective operation. The Background Facts: 4. This question has been referred to the Constitution Bench in the Civil Appeal arising out of S.L.P. No.540/2009 and, therefore, to start with, we would be justified in referring to facts of that case. In fact the answer to the aforesaid question would lead to the sealing of the fate of all these appeals one way or the other. The facts in this appeal, which need recapitulation, are that there was a search and seizure operation under Section 132 of the Act on the premises of the assessee on 10.02.2001. Notice under Section 158BC of the Act was issued to the assessee on 18.06.2001 requiring him to file his return of income for the block period ending 10.02.2000. In compliance, the assessee filed its return of income for the block period from 01.04.1989 to 10.02.2000. The Block Assessment in this case was completed under Section 158BA on 28.02.2002 at a total undisclosed income of Rs.85,18,819/-. After sometime, the Assessing Officer, on verification of working of calculation of tax, observed that surcharge had not been levied on the tax imposed upon the assessee. This was treated as a mistake apparent on record by the Assessing Officer and accordingly a rectification order was passed under Section 154 of the Act on 30.06.2003. This order under Section 154 of the Act, by which surcharge was levied by the Assessing Officer, was challenged in appeal by the assessee. The said order was cancelled by the CIT (Appeals)-I, New Delhi vide order dated 10.12.2003 on the ground that the levy of surcharge is a debatable issue and…
🔒
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