Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Detected automatically from the text. The count shows how many other judgments on BharatTax rely on the same authority.
ITA No.7/2008
Page 1 of 3 * THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Judgment delivered on : 18.07.2008
ITA No.7/2008
COMMISSIONER OF INCOME
..... Appellant TAX DELHI (CENTRAL)-III
versus
J.P.M FARMS (PVT.) LTD. ..... Respondent
Advocates who appeared in this case: For the Appellant
: Mr.R.D.Jolly For the Respondent
: Dr.Rakesh Gupta with Ms.Aarti Saini
CORAM :-
HON'BLE MR JUSTICE BADAR DURREZ AHMED HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAJIV SHAKDHER
Whether the Reporters of local papers may
be allowed to see the judgment ?
To be referred to Reporters or not ? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported
in the Digest ?
BADAR DURREZ AHMED, J (ORAL) 1. This appeal arises from the order passed by the Tribunal on 3.11.2006 in IT (SS) Appeal No. 58(del) of 2004 and pertains to the block assessment year 1.4.1990 to 19.3.2001. The ground of appeal before the Tribunal was :- 2008:DHC:2056-DB
ITA No.7/2008
Page 2 of 3 “That the ld. CIT (Appeals) has erred in upholding the levy of surcharge on the tax payable found on the undisclosed income computed in block assessment.” 2. As per the facts indicated in the Tribunal’s order, a search had been carried out on 19.3.2001. The proviso to Section 113 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 was inserted w.e.f 1.6.2002 whereby surcharge was sought to be levied on tax payable on undisclosed income determined in a block assessment. The Tribunal followed the decision of the Special Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Hyderabad in the case of Merit Enterprises v. DCIT and came to the conclusion that surcharge was not leviable in the present case and consequently, deleted the surcharge which had been levied by the revenue authorities. 3. In this background, the revenue has proposed the following question:- “Whether the ITAT was correct in law in holding that the surcharge U/S 113 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 was not leviable in the present case?” 4. Admit. 5. This issue does not require any further investigation on the part of this Court in view of the fact that the same stands 2008:DHC:2056-DB
ITA No.7/2008
Page 3 of 3 decided by the Supreme Court in the case of CIT v. Suresh Gupta; 297 ITR 322 (SC). Consequently, this question is decided in favour of the revenue and against the assessee. The appeal stands allowed.
BADAR DURREZ AHMED, J
RAJIV SHAKDHER, J
July 18, 2008 mb 2008:DHC:2056-DB