- (1.) The revenue has preferred this appeal against an order dated 13.4.2006 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (in short I.T.A.T.) in IT(SS) No. 57/Pat/2005 for the assessment year (block period) 1991-92 to 2000-2001 and 1.4.2000 to 14.2.2001 whereby and whereunder the I.T.A.T confirmed the order passed by the C.I.T(Appeals) and held that the surcharge of undisclosed income cannot be levied in respect of search conducted prior to 1.6.2002.
(2.) In course of assessment proceedings of the block period, the Assessing Officer determined total undisclosed income at Rs. 12,49,145/- in the case of respondent and subsequently by order dated 15.3.2004 surcharge of Rs. 74,948/- was levied in terms of the provisions of Finance Act, 2000 and only on this levy of surcharge, revenue preferred appeal before Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) (in short C.I.T. (Appeals)). By order dated 23.9.2004, the C.I.T. (Appeals) held that the provisions of Section 113 of the Income Tax Act has been inserted by the Finance Act, 2000 with effect from 1.6.2002. Proviso to Section 113 of the Income Tax Act had been inserted with effect from 1.6.2002 for levying surcharge on undisclosed income. The C.I.T (Appeals) held that search was conducted much prior to 1st June, 2002, and, therefore, surcharge is not leviable and on this findings, held the surcharge levied by the Assessing Officer is not correct and the same is deleted. The appeal preferred by the revenue before the Income-Tax Appellate Tribunal was dismissed by the Tribunal vide its order dated 3.4.2006. Challenging the order of the Tribunal, the revenue has preferred this appeal.
(3.) We have heard the submission of Mr. Deepak Roshan, learned counsel appearing for the revenue as well as learned Sr. counsel, Mr. B. Poddar, appearing for the assessee.;