TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2015 (1) TMI 197
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....9;), the revenue has preferred the present Tax Appeals assailing the following orders: Tax Appeal No. Date of Tribunal's order ITA No. Assessment Year 419/2007 11/08/06 129/Ahd/2002 1990-91 to 26.11.1999 1393/2007 30.11.2005 157/Ahd/2003 1991-92 to 22.11.2000 1394/2007 30.11.2005 158/Ahd/2003 1991-92 to 22.11.2000 1431/2007 02/12/05 339/Ahd/2003 1991-92 to 17.08.2000 1432/2007 02/12/05 338/Ahd/2003 1991-92 to 17.08.2000 1433/2007 02/12/05 337/Ahd/2003 1991-92 to 17.08.2000 1434/2007 02/12/05 336/Ahd/2003 1991-92 to 17.08.2000 1435/2007 02/12/05 72/Ahd/2003 1990-91 to 1999-2000 440/2008 29.06.2007 191/Ahd/2004 01.04.1....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....er the First Schedule of Finance Act. On appeal the CIT (Appeals) held partly allowed the appeals deleting certain addition and surcharge levied by the Assessing Officer. 3. On appeal before the Tribunal, by impugned order, the Tribunal upheld the orders passed by CIT(A) and dismissed the appeals of the Revenue. 4. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned order passed by the Tribunal, the revenue has preferred the present Tax Appeals for consideration of the aforesaid substantial question of law. 5. The issue involved in the present Tax Appeal is now not res integra in view of the decision of the Honble Supreme Court in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Vatika Township P. Ltd reported in [2014] 367 ITR 466 (SC) w....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d, whether surcharge was payable in respect of block assessment or not, was totally ambiguous and unclear. The Court pointed out that some assessing officers had taken the view that no surcharge is leviable. Others were at a loss to apply a particular rate of surcharge as they were not clear as to which Finance Act, prescribing such rates, was applicable. It is a matter of common knowledge and is also pointed out that the surcharge varies from year to year. However, the assessing officers were indeterminative about the date with reference to which rates provided for in the Finance Act were to be made applicable. They had four dates before them viz.: (i) Whether surcharge was leviable with refere....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....f undisclosed income was made prospective. Such a stipulation is contained in second proviso to subsection (3) of Section 2 of Finance Act, 2003. This proviso reads as under: "Provided further that the amount of incometax computed in accordance with the provisions of section 113 shall be increased by a surcharge for purposes of the Union as provided in Paragraph A, B, C, D or E, as the case may be, of Part III of the First Schedule of the Finance Act of the year in which the search is initiated under section 132 or requisition is made under section 132A of the income-tax Act." Addition of this proviso in the Finance Act, 2003 further makes it clear that such a provision was....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ownship (Supra), the question which is raised in the present appeals is required to be answered in favour of the assessee. We are not giving any elaborate reasons for the same as in the case of Vatika Township (Supra) it is held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that where a benefit is conferred by a legislation, the rule against a retrospective construction is different. If a legislation confers a benefit on some persons but without inflicting a corresponding detriment on some other person or on the public generally, and where to confer such benefit appears to have been the legislators object, then the presumption would be that such a legislation, giving it a purposive construction, would warrant it to be given a retrospective effect. The A....