Arijit Pasayat, J. - (1.) Leave granted.
(2.) Challenge in this appeal is to the judgment of a Division Bench of the Punjab and Haryana High Court dismissing the appeal filed under Section 260A of Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short the 'Act'). In the said appeal, challenge was to the order dated 01.7.2006 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Amritsar Bench, Amritsar (in short the 'Tribunal'). The dispute related to the block period 1.4.1990 to 3.7.2000. The question which arose for consideration is as follows: Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the ITAT was right in law in confirming the CIT (A)'s order directing not to levy surcharge on the tax worked out on the undisclosed income as the case pertains to a search conducted period to 1.6.2002 .
(3.) Factual position in a nutshell reads as follows: Search was conducted on 6.4.2000. The Assessing Officer in his order dated 22.5.2002 imposed surcharge and an application under Section 154 of the Act filed by the assessee for rectification was dismissed vide order dated 17.9.2003 with the observation that the surcharge was levied as per the provisions of Part I of the Ist Schedule appended to Finance Act, 2000. On the ground that there was no mistake apparent on the record, the application under Section 154 of the Act was rejected. However, the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Ludhiana, (for brevity the CIT (A)') reversed the order passed by the Assessing Officer and took the view that surcharge was not leviable in cases where the search has taken place prior to 1.6.2002. In that regard, reliance was placed on a Division Bench judgment of this Court in the case of CIT v. Ram Lal Bahu Lal 148 CTR 643. On further appeal by the Revenue the Tribunal upheld the order dated 12.9.2005 passed by the CIT (A) holding that the search in the present case took place on 6.4.2000 which was much prior to the date of amendment made in Section 113. The amendment was incorporated on 1.6.2002 by inserting proviso to Section 113 by Finance Act, 2002. It was by the amendment that levy of surcharge on the disclosed income was specifically provided w.e.f. 1.6.2002. The provision has not been given retrospective effect, and therefore, the Tribunal held that it applied only to cases where searches were carried out after 1.6.2002. The High Court dismissed the appeal relying on its decision in the case of CIT v. Roshan Singh Makkar and also referred to two other decisions of the Madras High Court in CIT v. Neotech Company, (2007) 291 ITR 27(Mad) and CIT v. S. Palanivel, (2007) 291 ITR 33(Mad) . ;