2011 (9) TMI 1096

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... ORDER: Heard Shri D.D. Chopra, learned counsel for the appellant and Shri Ratnesh Chandra, learned counsel for the respondent as well as perused the record. The controversy relates to Block Period from 1.4.1989 to 9.2.2000. In pursuance to search and seizure operation under Section 132 (1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 carried out at Krishna Kumar Gupta group of cases, proceeding was in....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....by the CIT. Hence the present appeal. While admitting this appeal on 5.2.2008, this Court framed following substantial questions of law:- "1. Whether under the facts and circumstances of the case, the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was justified in law in deleting the surcharge levied by the Assessing Officer without appreciating that the proviso to section 113 inserted by the Finance A....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....d." So far as substantial question of law at serial no. 1 is concerned, it is no more res integra in view of judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case reported in (2008) 297 ITR 322, Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Suresh N. Gupta., where it has been held that in a case of block assessment even prior to the amendment made in Section 113 of the Act w.e.f. 1.6.2002 surcharge was leviab....