IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY VPH ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION INCOME TAX APPEAL No. 520 OF 2006 The Commissioner of Income Tax-1, Thane Appellant Vs. Mrs. Priti Bhushan Mehta Respondent Mr. B. M. Chaterjee, for the appellant. Mr. Jitendra Jain with Muralidharan i/b Joy Legal Consultants for the respondent. CORAM : BILAL NAZKI, & A. A. KUMBHKONI, JJ. DATE : JULY 16, 2008. PC :- 1. The question framed in this appeal is- Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the learned ITAT erred in holding that income tax computed under section 113 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 is not liable for surcharge for the block period ended on 14-2-2001 as the proviso to section 113 was enacted only with effect from 1-6-2002 and hence it was not applicable for the block period ended on 14-2-2001? - 2 - 2. In nutshell it would amount to finding out whether proviso to section 113 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 enacted on 1-6-202 was retrospective or prospective. Appeal is admitted on the above question of law. 3. With the consent of the learned counsel for the parties, appeal can be disposed of at this stage itself, as the question is covered by the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Commissioner of Income-Tax Vs. Commissioner of Income-Tax Vs. Commissioner of Income-Tax Vs. Suresh Suresh Suresh N. Gupta, [2008]297 ITR 322 (SC) N. Gupta, [2008]297 ITR 322 (SC) N. Gupta, [2008]297 ITR 322 (SC). 4. As the Supreme Court has held that the proviso to Section 113 is retrospective. As such the appeal is allowed and the order of the Tribunal is set aside. Sd/- [ BILAL NAZKI, J.] Sd/- [ A. A. KUMBHAKONI, J.]