COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX AHMEDABAD Vs. GURUKRUPA DEVELOPERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS group of appeals arise out of similar backgrounds. Though facts are different in the appeals, issue being considered in these appeals is common. As pointed out by the learned counsel for the Revenue, the issue is squarely covered by the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Commissioner of Income-Tax vs. Suresh N. Gupta reported in [2008]297 ITR 322(SC).

(2.) FOR the purpose of this order, we may record the brief facts as arising in Tax Appeal No.823 of 2008. This appeal is directed against the judgment of the Tribunal dated 9.2.2007. The sole question pressed by the Revenue in this appeal is with respect to the surcharge on the undisclosed income of the assessee for the block period of 1991-92 to 2001-02.

(3.) LEARNED counsel for the Revenue drew our attention to the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Commissioner of Income-Tax vs. Suresh N. Gupta(supra), wherein the Apex Court was of the opinion that the proviso to Section 113 of the Act was inserted to indicate that the Finance Act of the year in which the search was initiated would apply. The Apex Court was of the opinion that this proviso was only clarificatory in nature and there was no question of its retrospective operation. The Bench held and observed as under:-