By TIOL News Service

CHENNAI, AUG 17, 2018: THE ISSUE IS - Whether any new levy/surcharge introduced by insertion of a provision under Income tax Act wich is capable of either interpretation, should not be applied retrospectively, being beneficial legislation. YES IS THE VERDICT.

Facts of the case:

The Revenue Department preferred present appeals challenging the action of ITAT in holding that the surcharge was not applicable to block assessment if search took place prior to the introduction of the proviso to section 113 w.e.f June 01, 2002, even though the Finance Act of different years falling within the block period prescribed levy of surcharge with reference to sec.113 of the Income-tax Act.

High Court held that,

++ it is seen that the issue under present appeal has been decided by the Supreme Court in favour of assessee and against the Revenue in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax (Central)-I vs. Vatika Township Private Limited - 2014-TIOL-78-SC-IT-CB. The question, which was considered by Supreme Court, is whether levy of surcharge, which was introduced by insertion of proviso to Section 113 of Income Tax Act, could be made retrospective. The Supreme Court therefore held that if the enactment is expressed in language, which is fairly capable of either interpretation, it ought to be construed as prospective only. Thus, following the said decision, the substantial questions of law is answered in favour of the assessee.

(See 2018-TIOL-1633-HC-MAD-IT)