C.I.T.JAIPUR vs. M/S SHAH MANAK LAL KODAR LAL

PDF · subscribers
ITA/110/2008HC RajasthanRJHC01031982200801 May 20172 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court held that the proviso inserted in Section 113 by the Finance Act 2002 was prescriptive in nature. Consequently, the surcharge leviable under the said proviso could not be made applicable to block assessments of an earlier period. The Court relied on the authoritative pronouncement of the Apex Court in Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Vatika Township Private Limited. Therefore, the ITAT had not committed any error by deleting the addition made by the Assessing Officer. The substantial question of law was decided in terms that the proviso to Section 113 is prescriptive in nature.

What were the facts?

The appeal was filed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (CIT) against an order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT). The ITAT had deleted an addition made by the Assessing Officer concerning the levy of surcharge under Section 113 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The search under Section 132 was conducted before June 1, 2002. The dispute revolves around whether surcharge under Section 113 was leviable in such circumstances, particularly in light of a Supreme Court decision.

What were the issues?

1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the learned Tribunal was right in holding that the surcharge under Section 113 was not leviable where the search under Section 132 was conducted before 01.06.2002, contrary to the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT Vs. Suresh N. Gupta, reported in 297 ITR 322? Assessee's Contention: The judgment does not record any specific contentions made by the respondent assessee. The ITAT's decision, which is under challenge, held that the surcharge was not leviable. Revenue's Contention: The appellant revenue contended that the surcharge under Section 113 was leviable, and the ITAT's decision to the contrary was incorrect, especially when compared to the Supreme Court's ruling in CIT Vs. Suresh N. Gupta.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 113,Section 132

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR D.B. Income Tax Appeal No. 110 / 2008 C.I.T.Jaipur ----Appellant Versus M/S Shah Manak Lal Kodar Lal ----Respondent _____________________________________________________ For Appellant(s) : Mr. KK Bissa For Respondent(s) : --- _____________________________________________________ HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GOVIND MATHUR HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINIT KUMAR MATHUR

Order 01/05/2017 By the order dated 12.08.2008, this appeal was admitted to adjudicate following substantial question of law:- “Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the learned Tribunal was right in holding that, the surcharge under Section 113 was not leviable where the search under Section 132 were conducted before 01.06.2002, contrary to the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT Vs. Suresh N. Gupta, reported in 297 ITR 322?” Hon’ble Supreme Court in Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Vatika Township Private Limited, reported in 2015 1 SCC page 1 held that proviso inserted in Section 113 by the Finance Act 2002 was prescriptive in the nature and surcharge is leviable under the aforesaid proviso could not be made applicable to the block

(2 of 2) [ITA-110/2008] assessment of an earlier period. In view of authoritative pronouncement of the Apex Court, this appeal is dismissed and the question framed is decided in the terms that proviso to Section 113 is prescriptive in nature and therefore the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal under the order impugned has not committed any error by deleting the edition made by the Assessing Officer. (VINIT KUMAR MATHUR)J. (GOVIND MATHUR)J. Anil Kumar Choudhary

More judgments on Section 113

All 50 judgments and leading authorities on Section 113 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →