- (1.) THIS petition seeks quashing of order dt. 23rd Sept., 2004, Annex. P.1 to the extent of holding that surcharge under Section 113 of the IT Act, 1961 (for short, 'the Act') was payable for the block period 1st April, 1990 to 24th May, 2000, though the said provision was not in force during the relevant period.
(2.) CASE of the petitioner is that search was conducted in the premises of the petitioner on 24th May, 2000 which was followed by notice under Section 158BC of the Act on 10th Oct., 2000. The petitioner filed return on 13th Feb., 2001 for the block period 1st April, 1990 to 24th May, 2000 declaring undisclosed income. The petitioner also filed an application before the Settlement Commission, which was disposed of on 23rd Sept., 2004 determining total income and also levying surcharge in terms of Finance Act, 2000. Contention raised on behalf of the petitioner is that in Section 113 of the Act, provision for surcharge has been incorporated only with effect from 1st June, 2002, which was prospective and, therefore, surcharge was not leviable. Learned Counsel for the assessee relied upon order passed by this Court in IT Appeal No. 29 of 2006, CIT v. Roshon Singh Makker reported at, (2006) 203 CTR 125 decided on 16th May, 2006, dismissing the appeal of the Revenue against the order of the Tribunal to the effect that surcharge was leviable w.e.f. 1st June, 2002.
(3.) IN the reply filed on behalf of the Revenue, it is submitted that in the present case, assessment year relevant to the year of search was the block period from 1st April, 1990 to 24th May, 2000. Though the provision was incorporated in the Act vide Finance Act, 2002 w.e.f. 1st June, 2002, in the Finance Act, 2000 itself, identical provision was added vide Section 3 of the said Act.;