On the ground that there was numbermistake apparent on the record, the application under Section 154 of the Act was rejected.
In that regard, reliance was placed on a Division Bench judgment of this Court in the case of CIT v. Ram Lal Bahu Lal 148 CTR 643 .
In the said appeal, challenge was to the order dated 01.7.2006 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Amritsar Bench, Amritsar in short the Tribunal .
Factual position in a nutshell reads as follows Search was companyducted on 6.4.2000.
1.6.2002.
However, the Commissioner of Income Tax Appeals , Ludhiana, for brevity the CIT A reversed the order passed by the Assessing Officer and took the view that surcharge was number leviable in cases where the search has taken place prior to 1.6.2002.
The Assessing Officer in his order dated 22.5.2002 imposed surcharge and an application under Section 154 of the Act filed by the assessee for rectification was dismissed vide order dated 17.9.2003 with the observation that the surcharge was levied as per the provisions of Part I of the Ist Schedule appended to Finance Act, 2000.
Challenge in this appeal is to the judgment of a Division Bench of the Punjab and Haryana High Court dismissing the appeal filed under Section 260 A of Income Tax Act, 1961 in short the Act .
Dr. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J Leave granted.
The provision has number been given retrospective effect, and therefore, the Tribunal held that it applied only to cases where searches were carried out after 1.6.2002.
