Source: http://blog.amitbajajadvocate.com/2014/10/supreme-court-clarifies-general.html
Timestamp: 2019-04-25 09:50:59+00:00

Document:
The Apex court held that the principle against the retospectivty is the principle of Fairness. The Court held that legislations which modified accrued rights or which impose obligations or impose new duties or attach a new disability have to be treated as prospective unless the legislative intent is clearly to give the enactment a retrospective effect; unless the legislation is for purpose of supplying an obvious omission in a former legislation or to explain a former legislation.
"The presumption against retrospective operation is not applicable to declaratory statutes. As stated in CRAIES and approved by the Supreme Court : "For modern purposes a declaratory Act may be defined as an Act to remove doubts existing as to the common law, or the meaning or effect of any statute. Such Acts are usually held to be retrospective. The usual reason for passing a declaratory Act is to set aside what Parliament deems to have been a judicial error, whether in the statement of the common law or in the interpretation of statutes. Usually, if not invariably, such an Act contains a preamble, and also the word 'declared' as well as the word 'enacted'. But the use of the words 'it is declared' is not conclusive that the Act is declaratory for these words may, at times, be used to introduced new rules of law and the Act in the latter case will only be amending the law and will not necessarily be retrospective. In determining, therefore, the nature of the Act, regard must be had to the substance rather than to the form. If a new Act is 'to explain' an earlier Act, it would be without object unless construed retrospective. An explanatory Act is generally passed to supply an obvious omission or to clear up doubts as to the meaning of the previous Act. It is well settled that if a statute is curative or merely declaratory of the previous law retrospective operation is generally intended. The language 'shall be deemed always to have meant' is declaratory, and is in plain terms retrospective. In the absence of clear words indicating that the amending Act is declaratory, it would not be so construed when the pre-amended provision was clear and unambiguous. An amending Act may be purely clarificatory to clear a meaning of a provision of the principal Act which was already implicit. A clarificatory amendment of this nature will have retrospective effect and, therefore, if the principal Act was existing law which the Constitution came into force, the amending Act also will be part of the existing law."
31. Of the various rules guiding how a legislation has to be interpreted, one established rule is that unless a contrary intention appears, a legislation is presumed not to be intended to have a retrospective operation. The idea behind the rule is that a current law should govern current activities. Law passed today cannot apply to the events of the past. If we do something today, we do it keeping in view the law of today and in force and not tomorrow's backward adjustment of it. Our belief in the nature of the law is founded on the bed rock that every human being is entitled to arrange his affairs by relying on the existing law and should not find that his plans have been retrospectively upset. This principle of law is known as lex prospicit non respicit : law looks forward not backward. As was observed in Phillips v. Eyre  LR 6 QB 1, a retrospective legislation is contrary to the general principle that legislation by which the conduct of mankind is to be regulated when introduced for the first time to deal with future acts ought not to change the character of past transactions carried on upon the faith of the then existing law.
32. The obvious basis of the principle against retrospectivity is the principle of 'fairness', which must be the basis of every legal rule as was observed in the decision reported in L'Office Cherifien des Phosphates v.Yamashita-Shinnihon Steamship Co. Ltd.  1 AC 486. Thus, legislations which modified accrued rights or which impose obligations or impose new duties or attach a new disability have to be treated as prospective unless the legislative intent is clearly to give the enactment a retrospective effect; unless the legislation is for purpose of supplying an obvious omission in a former legislation or to explain a former legislation. We need not note the cornucopia of case law available on the subject because aforesaid legal position clearly emerges from the various decisions and this legal position was conceded by the counsel for the parties. In any case, we shall refer to few judgments containing this dicta, a little later.
33. We would also like to point out, for the sake of completeness, that where a benefit is conferred by a legislation, the rule against a retrospective construction is different. If a legislation confers a benefit on some persons but without inflicting a corresponding detriment on some other person or on the public generally, and where to confer such benefit appears to have been the legislators object, then the presumption would be that such a legislation, giving it a purposive construction, would warrant it to be given a retrospective effect. This exactly is the justification to treat procedural provisions as retrospective. In Government of India & Ors. v.Indian Tobacco Association  7 SCC 396, the doctrine of fairness was held to be relevant factor to construe a statute conferring a benefit, in the context of it to be given a retrospective operation. The same doctrine of fairness, to hold that a statute was retrospective in nature, was applied in the case of Vijay v.State of Maharashtra & Ors  6 SCC 286. It was held that where a law is enacted for the benefit of community as a whole, even in the absence of a provision the statute may be held to be retrospective in nature. However, we are confronted with any such situation here.
The presumption against retrospective operation is not applicable to declaratory statutes. As stated in CRAIES and approved by the Supreme Court : "For modern purposes a declaratory Act may be defined as an Act to remove doubts existing as to the common law, or the meaning or effect of any statute. Such Acts are usually held to be retrospective. The usual reason for passing a declaratory Act is to set aside what Parliament deems to have been a judicial error, whether in the statement of the common law or in the interpretation of statutes. Usually, if not invariably, such an Act contains a preamble, and also the word 'declared' as well as the word 'enacted'. But the use of the words 'it is declared' is not conclusive that the Act is declaratory for these words may, at times, be used to introduced new rules of law and the Act in the latter case will only be amending the law and will not necessarily be retrospective. In determining, therefore, the nature of the Act, regard must be had to the substance rather than to the form. If a new Act is 'to explain' an earlier Act, it would be without object unless construed retrospective. An explanatory Act is generally passed to supply an obvious omission or to clear up doubts as to the meaning of the previous Act. It is well settled that if a statute is curative or merely declaratory of the previous law retrospective operation is generally intended. The language 'shall be deemed always to have meant' is declaratory, and is in plain terms retrospective. In the absence of clear words indicating that the amending Act is declaratory, it would not be so construed when the pre-amended provision was clear and unambiguous. An amending Act may be purely clarificatory to clear a meaning of a provision of the principal Act which was already implicit. A clarificatory amendment of this nature will have retrospective effect and, therefore, if the principal Act was existing law which the Constitution came into force, the amending Act also will be part of the existing law."
The above summing up is factually based on the judgments of this Court as well as English decisions.
"11. Now it is a well settled rule of interpretation hallowed by time and sanctified by judicial decisions that, unless the terms of a statute expressly so provide or necessarily require it, retrospective operation should not be given to a statute so as to take away or impair an existing right or create a new obligation or impose a new liability otherwise than as regards matters of procedure. The general rule as stated by Halsbury in Vol. 36 of the Laws of England (3rd Edn.) and reiterated in several decisions of this Court as well as English courts is that all statutes other than those which are merely declaratory or which relate only to matters of procedure or of evidence are prima facie prospectively and retrospective operation should not be given to a statute so as to affect, alter or destroy an existing right or create a new liability or obligation unless that effect cannot be avoided without doing violence to the language of the enactment. If the enactment is expressed in language which is fairly capable of either interpretation, it ought to be constued as prospective only."
37. In the case of C.I.T., Bombay v. Scindia Steam Navigation Co. Ltd. 1962 (1) SCR 788, this Court held that as the liability to pay tax is computed according to the law in force at the beginning of the assessment year, i.e., the first day of April, any change in law affecting tax liability after that date though made during the currency of the assessment year, unless specifically made retrospective, does not apply to the assessment for that year.
A.K. Sikri, J. - Delay condoned.
3. In these batch of appeals, most of which are preferred by the Commissioner(s) of Income Tax (hereinafter referred to as 'the Department'), with the exception of few appeals filed by the assessees, the question of law which has fallen for consideration is as to whether the proviso appended to Section 113 of the Income Tax Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') which was inserted in that Section by the Finance Act, 2002 is to operate prospectively or is clarificatory and curative in nature and, therefore, has retrospective operation.
4. This question has been referred to the Constitution Bench in the Civil Appeal arising out of S.L.P. No.540/2009 and, therefore, to start with, we would be justified in referring to facts of that case. In fact the answer to the aforesaid question would lead to the sealing of the fate of all these appeals one way or the other. The facts in this appeal, which need recapitulation, are that there was a search and seizure operation under Section 132 of the Act on the premises of the assessee on 10.02.2001. Notice under Section 158BC of the Act was issued to the assessee on 18.06.2001 requiring him to file his return of income for the block period ending 10.02.2000. In compliance, the assessee filed its return of income for the block period from 01.04.1989 to 10.02.2000. The Block Assessment in this case was completed under Section 158BA on 28.02.2002 at a total undisclosed income of Rs.85,18,819/-. After sometime, the Assessing Officer, on verification of working of calculation of tax, observed that surcharge had not been levied on the tax imposed upon the assessee. This was treated as a mistake apparent on record by the Assessing Officer and accordingly a rectification order was passed under Section 154 of the Act on 30.06.2003. This order under Section 154 of the Act, by which surcharge was levied by the Assessing Officer, was challenged in appeal by the assessee. The said order was cancelled by the CIT (Appeals)-I, New Delhi vide order dated 10.12.2003 on the ground that the levy of surcharge is a debatable issue and therefore such an order could not be passed taking umbrage under Section 154 of the Act. The undisclosed income was revised under Section 250BC/158BC by the Assessing Officer vide order dated 09.09.2003 to Rs.10,90,000/- to give effect to the above order of the CIT (Appeals), and thereby removing the component of the surcharge.
5. As the Department wanted the surcharge to be levied, the Commissioner of Income Tax (Central-I), New Delhi issued a notice under Section 263 of the Act to the assessee and sought to revise the order dated 09.09.2003 passed by the Assessing Officer by which he had given effect to the order of the CIT (Appeals) and in the process did not charge any surcharge. In the opinion of CIT, this led to income having escaped the assessment. According to the CIT, in view of the provisions of Section 113 of the Act as inserted by the Finance Act, 1995 and clarified by the Board Circular No.717 dated 14.08.1995, surcharge was leviable on the income assessed. According to the CIT the charging provision was Section 4 of the Act which was to be read with Section 113 of the Act that prescribes the rate and tax for search and seizure cases and rate of surcharge as specified in the Finance Act of the relevant year was to be applied. In this particular case the search and seizure operation took place on 14.07.1999 and treating this date as relevant, the Finance Act 1999 was to be applied.
6. The CIT, accordingly, cancelled the order dated 09.09.2003 not levying surcharge upon the assessee, as being erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of the revenue. The Assessing Officer was directed by the CIT to levy surcharge @ 10% and the amount of income tax computed and issue revised notice of demand. The order covered block period 01.04.1989 to 10.02.2000. This order of the CIT under Section 263 of the Act was passed on 23.03.2004. The assessee filed the appeal before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as 'the Tribunal') against the said order of the CIT. The Tribunal vide its order dated 23.06.2006 allowed the appeal of the assessee. The Tribunal held that the insertion of the proviso to Section 113 of the Income Tax Act cannot be held to be declaratory or clarificatory in nature and was prospective in its operation. Against the order of the Tribunal dated 23.06.2006 the revenue approached the High Court of Delhi by way of an appeal filed under Section 260 A of the Act for the block period 01.04.1989 to 10.02.2000. This appeal has been dismissed vide order dated 17.04.2007 by the High Court. It is this order of the High Court which is the subject matter of the appeal in question.
7. It is clear from the aforesaid narration that the High Court has taken the view that proviso inserted in Section 113 of the Act by the Finance Act, 2002 was prospective in nature and the surcharge as leviable under the aforesaid proviso could not be made applicable to the block assessment in question of an earlier period i.e. the period from 01.04.1989 to 10.02.2000 in the instant case.
"Provided that the tax chargeable under this section shall be increased by a surcharge, if any, levied by any Central Act and applicable in the assessment year relevant to the previous year in which the search is initiated under Section 132 or the requisition is made under Section 132-A.
In this case, the search and seizure took place on 06.10.2001. An order of block assessment in terms of Section 158BC was made in respect of the assessment years 1984 to 2003. The surcharge was levied on 30.06.2003.
As the said proviso was introduced with effect from 01.06.2002, i.e. with prospective effect and by reason thereof, tax chargeable under Section 135 of the Income Tax Act is to be increased by surcharge levied by a Central Act, we are of the opinion that keeping in view the principles of law that the taxing statute should be construed strictly and a statute, ordinarily, should not be held to have any retrospective effect, it is necessary that the matter be considered by a larger Bench.
We, while issuing notice, direct the Registry to place the matter before Hon'ble the Chief Justice for constitution of a larger Bench."
"Vide order dated 06.01.2009 the lead matter was referred to be listed before a larger Bench and consequently the matter, along with connected matters, were listed before a three Judge Bench.
After having heard learned counsel on both sides at length, looking to the important questions of law involved having wide ramifications and pendency of several matters on the same issue before several High Courts and Tribunals, we deem it appropriate to refer the matters for being placed before Five Judges Bench. Matter be placed accordingly."
10. This is precisely raison d'etre for hearing the matter by the present Constitution Bench. We may observe here that after the aforesaid reference, other connected appeals raising the identical issue have been tagged with direction to be heard along with this appeal.
"271. Surcharge on certain duties and taxes for purposes of the Union Notwithstanding anything in Articles 269 and 270, Parliament may at any time increase any of the duties or taxes referred in those articles by a surcharge for purposes of the Union and the whole proceeds of any such surcharge shall form part the Consolidated Fund of India."
(a) 'block period' means the period comprising previous years relevant to six assessment years preceding the previous year in which the search was conducted under Section 132 or any requisition was made under Section 132A and also includes the period up to the date of the commencement of such search or date of such requisition in the previous year in which the said search was conducted or requisition was made.
Provided that where the search is initiated or the requisition is made before the 1st day of June, 2001, the provisions of this clause shall have effect as if for the words "six assessment years" the words "ten assessment years" had been substituted.
(b) "undisclosed income" includes any money, bullion, jewellery or other valuable article or thing or any income based on any entry in the books of account or other documents or transactions, where such money, bullion, jewellery, valuable article, thing, entry in the books of account or other document or transaction represents wholly or partly income or property which has not been or would not have been disclosed for the purposes of this Act.
158BA. Assessment of undisclosed income as a result of search.- (1) Notwithstanding anything contained in any other provisions of this Act where after the 30th day of June, 1995, a search is initiated under Section 132 or books of account, other documents or any assets are requisitioned under Section 132A in the case of any person, then, the Assessing Officer shall proceed to assess the undisclosed income in accordance with the provisions of this Chapter.
(2) The total undisclosed income relating to the block period shall be charged to tax, at the rate specified in Section 113, as income of the block period irrespective of the previous year or years to which such income relates and irrespective of the fact whether regular assessment for any one or more of the relevant assessment years is pending or not.
(3) Where the assessee proves to the satisfaction of the Assessing Officer that any part of income referred to in sub-section (1) relates to an assessment year for which the previous year has not ended or the date of filing the return of income under sub-section (1) of section 139 for any previous year has not expired, and such income or the transactions relating to such income are recorded on or before the date of the search or requisition in the books of account or other documents maintained in the normal course relating to such previous years, the said income shall not be included in the block period.
(c) assessment under Section 143 includes determination of income under sub-section (1) or sub-section (1B) of section 143.
(4) For the purpose of assessment under this Chapter, losses brought forward from the previous year under Chapter VI or unabsorbed depreciation under sub-section (2) of section 32 shall not be set off against the undisclosed income determined in the block assessment under this Chapter, but may be carried forward for being set off in the regular assessments.
(d) the assets seized under section 132 or requisitioned under section 132A shall be retained to the extent necessary and the provisions of section 132B shall apply subject to such modifications as may be necessary and the references to 'regular assessment' or 'reassessment' in section 132B shall be construed as references to 'block assessment'.
158BH. Application of other provisions of this Act.-Save as otherwise provided in this Chapter, all other provisions of this Act shall apply to assessment made under this Chapter."
18. From the reading of the aforesaid statutory provisions in abstract, particularly relating to surcharge, it is clear that though provision for surcharge under the Finance Act has been in existence since 1995, in so far as levy of surcharge for block assessment is concerned, it is introduced by insertion of aforesaid proviso of Section 113. It is in this background, the question has arisen as to whether this surcharge on block assessment has been levied for the first time by the aforesaid proviso coming into effect from 01.06.2002 or it is only clarificatory in nature because of the reason that the provision for surcharge was made in the Finance Act in the year 1995 and that covered surcharge on block assessment as well.
2. Whether the proviso inserted in Section 113 by the Finance Act, 2002, is clarificatory?"
Dealing with the first question, the Court noted the contention of the assessee that Chapter XIVB, which was inserted by the Finance Act, 1995 with effect from July 1, 1995 was a self-contained chapter as it lays down a special procedure for assessment of undisclosed income found during search for the "block period". It was argued by the assessee that this Chapter contains a charging section (158BA), a computation section (158BB), a procedural section for block assessment (158BC), limitation provision for completion of block assessment (158BE) and the provisions for imposition of interest and penalty (158BFA). It was also argued that the scheme of assessment of "undisclosed income" under Chapter XIV-B is different from the scheme of assessment of "total income" of any person in terms of Section 4(1) of the Act. In support of this argument, it was submitted that whereas Chapter XIV-B deals with assessment of "undisclosed income", Section 4 of the Act relates to the assessment of "total income". Moreover, "block period" mentioned in Chapter XIV-B was different from the assessment of income of the "previous year" under Section 4(1) of the Act. Even the rate of tax at which the "undisclosed income" is assessed is different inasmuch as it is 60% as specified in Section 158BA(2) read with section 113 of the Act, in contradistinction to the taxation of normal income which is at the rates specified in the relevant Finance Act. In nutshell, it was argued that block assessment falls in Chapter XIV-B for which charging section was section 158BA and for assessment of block period, charging section was not section 4(1) of the Act. On that basis, the assessee wanted the Court to hold that it was not open to the Assessing Officer to levy surcharge prior to June 1, 2002, i.e. before the insertion of proviso to Section 113 of the Act.
21. This argument was rejected by the Court. The Bench took note of Article 271 of the Constitution along with Entry 82 of List 1 of the Seventh Schedule to the Constitution of India and Section 4 of the Act which is the charging section. It held that the power to levy surcharge on income tax is traceable to Article 271 read with Entry 82 and not to Section 4 of the Act. The rate at which the charge on total income on the previous year is imposed is not laid down in the Income Tax Act but in the Finance Act indicated every year by the Parliament to give effect to the financial proposals of the Central Government. It further held that since Income Tax Act deals with tax on income and nothing else, nor with charge should be a legal charge under Section 4, it must be a tax on the income of the assessee.
Therefore, Section 4(1) of the Act was the charging section and the rate of tax is prescribed under that very Act i.e. Section 113. As long as the charge is on the "total income" of the previous year and so long as the rate relates to the subject matter of the tax, there is nothing to prevent the Parliament from fixing the date. What is to be seen is that the rate is applied to the "total income" and the tax which the assessee has to pay must be at the rate in respect of the total income of the previous year.
23. Adverting to the second question formulated by the Bench, namely, whether insertion of the proviso in section 113 by the Finance Act, 2002 was applicable to search of the earlier period as well i.e. upto May 31, 2002, the Court pointed out that in view of its answer to the first question, second question did not even require any examination. It, however, proceeded to answer this question as well having regard to the submission of the assessee that before the said proviso, there was inconsistency with regard to levy of surcharge and the position was ambiguous as it was not clear even to the Department as to which year's Finance Act would be applicable. Brushing aside this argument, the Court held that to clear this very doubt precisely, the proviso had been inserted in section 113 and therefore it was only clarificatory in nature. The Court specifically noted that before the proviso was inserted, there was some doubts in the mind of the Department and the taxpayers about the date with reference to which the rate at which surcharge is payable. The confusion was as to whether surcharge was leviable with reference to the rates provided for in the Finance Act of the year in which the search was initiated or the year in which the search was concluded or the year in which block assessment proceedings under Section 158BC were initiated or the year in which block assessment order was passed. The Court opined that proviso only clarifies that out of the aforesaid 4 dates, the Parliament has opted for the date in which the search is initiated, as the date relevant for applicability of a particular Finance Act.
25. It would be our duty to point out at this stage that another Division Bench in the case of CIT v. Sanjiv Bhatara  310 ITR 105 (SC), has followed the aforesaid judgment by giving same reasons in support.
27. Before we proceed to answer the question, it would be necessary to keep in mind the scheme of block assessment introduced in Chapter XIVB to Finance Act, 1995 w.e.f. 1st July, 1995. As already mentioned in brief by us, Chapter XIVB of the Act which deals with block assessment lays down a special procedure for search cases. The main reason for adding these provisions in the Act was to curb tax evasion and expedite as well as simplify the assessments in such search cases. Undisclosed incomes have to be related in different years in which income was earned under block assessment. This is because in such cases, the "block period" is for previous years relevant to 10/6 assessment years and also the period of the current previous year up to the date of the search, i.e., form April 1, 2000, to January 17, 2001, in this case. The essence of this new procedure, therefore, is a separate single assessment of the "undisclosed income", detected as a result of search and this separate assessment has to be in addition to the normal assessment covering the same period. Therefore, a separate return covering the years of the block period is a pre-requisite for making block assessment. Under the said procedure, the Explanation is inserted in section 158BB, which is the computation section, explaining the method of computation of "undisclosed income" of the block period. It is now well accepted that this Chapter is a complete code in itself providing for self-contained machinery for assessment of undisclosed income for the block period of 10 years or 6 years, as the case may be. In case of regular assessments for which returns are filed on yearly basis, Section 4 of the Act is the charging section. However, at what rate the income is to be taxed is specified every year by the Parliament in the Finance Act. In contradistinction, when it comes to payment of tax on the undisclosed income relating to the block period, rate is specified in Section 113 of the Act. It remains static at 60% of the undisclosed income which is the categorical stipulation in the Section 113 of the Act. Section 158BA(2) of the Act clearly states that the total undisclosed income relating to the block period "shall be charged to tax" at the rates specified under Section 113 as income of the block period irrespective of previous year or years. Under Section 113 of the Act, the undisclosed income is chargeable to tax at the rate of 60%.
28. From the above, it becomes manifest that Chapter XIVB comprehensively takes care of all the aspects relating to the block assessment relating to undisclosed income, which includes Section 156BA(2) as the charging section and even the rate at which such income is to be taxed is mentioned in Section 113 of the Act. No doubt, Section 4 of the Act is also a charging section which is made applicable on 'total income of previous year'. As per Section 2 (45), 'total income' means the total amount of income referred to in Section 5, computed in the manner laid down in the Act. Section 5 of the Act enumerates the scope of total income and prescribes, inter alia, that it would include all income which is received or is deemed to receive in India in any previous year by or on behalf of a person who is a Resident. No doubt, undisclosed income referred to in Chapter XIVB is also an income which was received but not disclosed, therefore, in the first blush, argument of the Department that undisclosed income referred to in Chapter XIVB is also a part of total income and consequently Section 4 becomes the charging section in respect thereof as well. However, a little closer scrutiny leads us to conclude that that is not the position as per the scheme of Chapter XIVB. In the first place, income referred to in Section 5 talks of total income of any 'previous year'. As per Section 2 (34) of the Act, 'previous year' means previous year as defined in Section 3. Section 3 lays down that previous year means 'the financial year immediately preceding the assessment year'. Undisclosed income referred to in Chapter XIVB is not relateable to the previous year. On the contrary, it is for the block period which may be 6 years or 10 years, as the case may be. Consequently, as already mentioned, while analyzing the scheme of Chapter XIVB, such Chapter is a complete code in respect of assessments of 'undisclosed income'. Not only it defines what is undisclosed income, it also lays down the block period for which undisclosed income can be taxed. Further, it also lays down the procedure for taxing that income. It is very pertinent to note at this stage that for this purpose, specific provision in the form of Section 158BA(2) is inserted making it a charging section. Thus, a diagnostic of Chapter XIVB of the Act leads to irresistible conclusion that it contains all the provisions starting from charging section till the completion of assessment, by prescribing special procedure in relation thereto, making it a complete Code by itself. Looking it from this angle, the character and nature of 'undisclosed income' referred to in Chapter XIVB becomes quite distinct from 'total income' referred to in Section 5. It is of some significance to observe that when a separate charging section is introduced specifically, to assess the undisclosed income, notwithstanding a provision in the nature of Section 4 already on the statute book, this move of the legislature has to be assigned some reason, otherwise, there was no necessity to make a provision in the form of Section 158BA(2). It could only be that for assessing undisclosed income, charging provision is Section 158BA(2) alone.
29. Notwithstanding the aforesaid position clarified with us, we are of the opinion that dehors this discussion, in any case on the application of general principles concerning retrospectivity, the proviso to Section 113 of the Act cannot be treated as clarificatory in nature, thereby having retrospective effect. To make it clear, we need to understand the general principles concerning retrospectivity.
(iv) the year in which block assessment order was passed.
"The character of computation of provisions in each case bears a relationship to the nature of the charge. Thus, the charging section and the computation provisions together constitute an integrated code. When there is a case to which the computation provisions cannot apply at all, it is evident that such a case was not intended to fall within the charging section."
"In the case of a block assessment, there are two problems in relation to the levy of surcharge. The first is that Section 113 does not mention a Central Act. In the absence of a reference to another Central Act in the charging section, it becomes difficult to justify levy of surcharge. Even if it is assumed that reference in the Finance Act to section 113 is a sufficient authority to levy surcharge, the second problem is that the Finance Act levies surcharge on the amount of income-tax on the income of a particular assessment year whereas in the block assessment tax is levied on the undisclosed income of the block period. Absence of a specific assessment year in the block assessment may render the levy suspect. Yet another problem is the rate of surcharge applicable. To illustrate, if the search took place on, say, April 4, 1996, whether the rate of surcharge is to be adopted as applicable to the assessment year 1996-97 or the assessment year 1997-98, the rate of surcharge being different for the two years? The provisions of section 113 or the provisions of the Finance Act do not offer any guidance on the issue.
The foregoing problem indicates that levy of surcharge on undisclosed income is a matter of uncertainty and is prone to litigation. In the circumstances, it is suggested that section 113 may be amended retrospectively in order to provide for levy of surcharge at the rate applicable to the assessment year relevant to the financial year in which the search was concluded."
The Chief Commissioners accepted the position, in no uncertain terms, that as per the language of Section 113, as it existed, it was difficult to justify levy of surcharge. It was also acknowledged that even if Section 113 empowered to levy surcharge, since block assessment tax is levied on the undisclosed income of the block period, absence of specific assessment year in the block assessment would render the levy suspect.
(c) We would like to embark on a discussion on some basic and fundamental concepts, which would shed further light on the subject matter. No doubt, there is no scope for accepting the Libertarian theory which postulates among others, no taxation by the State as it amounts to violation of individual liberty and advocates minimal interference by the State. The Libertarianism propounded by the Australian-born economist philosopher Friedrich A. Hayek and American economist Milton Friedman stands emphatically rejected by all civilised and democratically governed States, in favour of strongly conceptualised "welfare state". To attain welfare state is our constitutional goal as well, enshrined as one of its basic feature, which runs through our Constitution. It is for this reason, specific provisions are made in the Constitution, empowering the legislature to make laws for levy of taxes, including the income-tax. The rationale behind collection of taxes is that revenue generated therefrom shall be spent by the governments on various developmental and welfare schemes, among others.
At the same time, it is also mandated that there cannot be imposition of any tax without the authority of law. Such a law has to be unambiguous and should prescribe the liability to pay taxes in clear terms. If the concerned provision of the taxing statute is ambiguous and vague and is susceptible to two interpretations, the interpretation which favours the subjects, as against there the revenue, has to be preferred. This is a well established principle of statutory interpretation, to help finding out as to whether particular category of assessee are to pay a particular tax or not. No doubt, with the application of this principle, Courts make endeavour to find out the intention of the legislature. At the same time, this very principle is based on "fairness" doctrine as it lays down that if it is not very clear from the provisions of the Act as to whether the particular tax is to be levied to a particular class of persons or not, the subject should not be fastened with any liability to pay tax. This principle also acts as a balancing factor between the two jurisprudential theories of justice - Libertarian theory on the one hand and Kantian theory along with Egalitarian theory propounded by John Rawls on the other hand.
"Tax Statutes... should be strictly construed, and, if any ambiguity be found to exist, it must be resolved in favor of the citizen. Eidman v. Martinez, 184 U.S. 578, 583; United States v. Wigglesworth, 2 Story, 369, 374; Mutual Benefit Life Ins. Co. v. Herold, 198 F. 199, 201, aff'd 201 F. 918;Parkview Bldg. Assn. v. Herold, 203 F. 876, 880; Mutual Trust Co. v. Miller, 177 N.Y. 51, 57."
"On behalf of the Government it is urged that taxation is a practical matter and concerns itself with the substance of the thing upon which the tax is imposed rather than with legal forms or expressions. But in statutes levying taxes the literal meaning of the words employed is most important, for such statutes are not to be extended by implication beyond the clear import of the language used. If the words are doubtful, the doubt must be resolved against the Government and in favor of the taxpayer. Gould v. Gould, 245 U.S. 151, 153"
As Lord Cairns said many years ago in Partington v. Attorney-General (1869) LR 4 HL 100: "As I understand the principle of all fiscal legislation it is this : If the person sought to be taxed comes within the letter of the law he must be taxed, however great the hardship may appear to the judicial mind to be. On the other hand, if the Crown, seeking to recover the tax, cannot bring the subject within the letter of the law, the subject is free, however apparently within the spirit of the law the case might otherwise appear to be.
(d) There are some other circumstances which reflect the legislative intent. The problem which was highlighted in the Conference of Chief Commissioners on the rate of surcharge applicable is noted above. In view of the aforesaid difficulties pointed out by the Chief Commissioners in their Conference, it becomes clear that as per the provisions then enforced, levy of surcharge in the block assessment on the undisclosed income was a difficult proposition. It is for this reason retrospective amendment to Section 113 was suggested.
Notwithstanding the same, the legislature chose not to do so, as is clear from the discussion hereinafter.
(e) There is yet another very interesting piece of evidence that clarifies the provision beyond any pale of doubt, viz. understanding of CBDT itself regarding this provision. It is contained in CBDT circular No.8 of 2002 dated 27th August, 2002, with the subject "Finance Act, 2002 - Explanatory Notes on provision relating to Direct Taxes". This circular has been issued after the passing of the Finance Act, 2002, by which amendment to Section 113 was made. In this circular, various amendments to the Income Tax Act are discussed amply demonstrating as to which amendments are clarificatory/retrospective in operation and which amendments are prospective. For example, explanation to Section 158BB is stated to be clarificatory in nature. Likewise, it is mentioned that amendments in Section 145 whereby provisions of that section are made applicable to block assessments is made clarificatory and would take effect retrospectively from 1st day of July, 1995. When it comes to amendment to Section 113 of the Act, this very circular provides that the said amendment along with amendments in Section 158BE, would be prospective i.e. it will take effect from 1st June, 2002.
"Provided further that the amount of income-tax computed in accordance with the provisions of section 113 shall be increased by a surcharge for purposes of the Union as provided in Paragraph A, B, C, D or E, as the case may be, of Part III of the First Schedule of the Finance Act of the year in which the search is initiated under section 132 or requisition is made under section 132A of the income-tax Act."
Addition of this proviso in the Finance Act, 2003 further makes it clear that such a provision was necessary to provide for surcharge in the cases of block assessments and thereby making it prospective in nature. The charge in respect of the surcharge, having been created for the first time by the insertion of the proviso to Section 113, is clearly a substantive provision and hence is to be construed prospective in operation. The amendment neither purports to be merely clarificatory nor is there any material to suggest that it was intended by Parliament. Furthermore, an amendment made to a taxing statute can be said to be intended to remove 'hardships' only of the assessee, not of the Department. On the contrary, imposing a retrospective levy on the assessee would have caused undue hardship and for that reason Parliament specifically chose to make the proviso effective from 1.6.2002.

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.