K.J. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION INCOME TAX APPEAL NO.672 OF 2007 The CIT Mumbai City XXV ..Appellant Versus Hitesh J.Shah ..Respondent ---- Mr.A.D.Kango & Mr.P.S.Sahadevan for the appellant. Mr.A.K.Jasani for the respondent. ---- Coram : F.I.Rebello & R.S.Mohite,JJ Coram : F.I.Rebello & R.S.Mohite,JJ Coram : F.I.Rebello & R.S.Mohite,JJ Date : 26th March, 2008. PC 1. Revenue has preferred this appeal on the following question :- " Whether in the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law Hon’ble Tribunal was correct in holding that the surcharge is not leviable on tax payable on undisclosed income pertaining to the block period prior to the amendment to section 113 disregarding the provision of section 4 of the I.T. Act which is the main charging section alongwith the annual Finance Act which levied the surcharge ?" 2. Learned Counsel for the parties draw our attention to the judgment of the Supreme Court in : 2 : CIT-2 V/s. Suresh N. Gupta reported in 297 ITR 322 (SC) where the Supreme Court has held that surcharge can be levied. 3. In the light of the above, the order of the Tribunal is set aside and the order of CIT (A) is restored. Appeal disposed off accordingly. (R.S.Mohite,J) (F.I.Rebello,J) (R.S.Mohite,J) (F.I.Rebello,J) (R.S.Mohite,J) (F.I.Rebello,J)