SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2021 Supreme(SC) 594

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
M.R. SHAH, A.S. BOPANNA, JJ.
The Commissioner of Income Tax, Chennai - Appellant
Versus
Mohammed Meeran Shahul Hameed - Respondent
Civil Appeal No. 6204 of 2021
Decided On : 07-10-2021

Advocates appeared:
For the Appellant(s) : Mrs. Anil Katiyar, AOR
For the Respondent(s) Mr. K. Parameshwar, AOR

IMPORTANT POINTS
(1) Receipt of order passed under Section 263 by assessee has no relevance for the purpose of counting period of limitation provided under Section 263 of Income Tax Act.
(2) As per cardinal principle of law provision of Statue/Act is to be read as it is and nothing is to be added or taken away from provision of Statue.

Headnote:

Income Tax Act, 1961 – Section 263 read with Section 143(2) – Revision of assessment order – No order under Section 263 of Act shall be made after expiry of two years from end of financial year in which order sought to be revised was passed – Once it is established that order under Section 263 was made/passed within period of two years from end of financial year in which order sought to be revised was passed, such an order cannot be said to be beyond period of limitation prescribed under Section 263 (2) of Act – Receipt of order passed under Section 263 by assessee has no relevance for the purpose of counting period of limitation provided under Section 263 of Income Tax Act – Word used is “made” and not the “receipt of order” – As per cardinal principle of law provision of Statue/Act is to be read as it is and nothing is to be added or taken away from provision of Statue – High Court has erred in holding that order under Section 263 of Act passed by Commissioner was barred by period of limitation, as provided under sub-section (2) of Section 263 of Act – Order passed by Commissioner under Section 263 of Income Tax Act was within period of limitation prescribed under sub-section (2) of Section 263 of Act – Appeal allowed. (Paras 4,3 and 5)

Facts of the Case:

Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and order dated 03.07.2019 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Madras in Tax Case Appeal No.429 of 2019, by which High Court has dismissed the said appeal preferred by the revenue and has confirmed the order dated 04.04.2013 passed by Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) in ITA No.2244/Mds/2012, the revenue has preferred the present appeal. Dissatisfied with the order passed by ITAT quashing and setting aside the revisional order passed by Commissioner under Section 263 of the Act and holding that the order passed by Commissioner was beyond the period of limitation prescribed under Section 263 (2) of the Act, revenue-appellant herein preferred appeal before High Court. By the impugned judgment and order, the High Court has dismissed the said appeal and has confirmed the order passed by ITAT holding that the order passed by Commissioner under Section 263 of the Act was barred by limitation. Short question of law which is posed for consideration before this court is, whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, High Court and ITAT are right in holding that the order passed by Commissioner passed under Section 263 was barred by period of limitation provided under Section 263 (2) of the Act? Whether the High Court is right in holding that the relevant date for the purpose of considering the period of limitation under Section 263(2) of the IT Act would be the date on which the order passed under Section 263 by Commissioner is received by the assessee?

Findings of Court:

High Court as such has misconstrued and has misinterpreted the provision of sub-section (2) of Section 263 of the Act. If the interpretation made by the High Court and ITAT is accepted in that case it will be violating the provision of Section 263 (2) of the Act and to add something which is not there in the section.

Result : Appeal allowed.

JUDGMENT :

M.R. Shah, J.

1. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and order dated 03.07.2019 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Madras in Tax Case Appeal No.429 of 2019, by which the High Court has dismissed the said appeal preferred by the revenue and has confirmed the order dated 04.04.2013 passed by the learned Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as the learned ITAT) in ITA No.2244/Mds/2012, the revenue has preferred the present appeal.

2. The facts leading to the present appeal in nutshell are as under:

2.1 The Assessing Officer (hereinafter referred to as the AO) passed an assessment order under Section 143 (3) of the Income Tax Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) for the assessment year (AY) 200809 vide assessment order dated 30.12.2010. The Commissioner of Income Tax initiated revision proceeding under Section 263 of the Act to revise the assessment order passed by the learned Assessing Officer and issued a notice to the assessee respondent herein on 01.02.2012. The assessee – respondent herein filed written submissions on 07.03.2012 and 12.03.2012. That the learned Commissioner passed an order under Section 263 of the Act on 26.03.2012 holding that the Assessing Officer had failed to make relevant and necessary enquiries and to make correct assessment of income after due application of mind and thus the assessment order made under Section 143 (3) of the Act was held to be erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue. The learned Commissioner set aside the assessment order with a direction to Assessing Officer to make necessary enquiries on the aspects mentioned in the order under Section 263. The order passed by the learned Commissioner in exercise of powers under Section 263 of the Act was challenged by the assessee – respondent herein before the learned ITAT. At this stage, it is required to be noted that the order passed under Section 263 of the Act was dispatched by the office of the Commissioner on 28.03.2012.

2.2 The assessee – respondent herein filed an appeal before the learned ITAT on 29.11.2012 submitting that it had come to know about the revision order only when he received notice dated 06.08.2012 under Section 143 (2) read with Section 263 of the Act from the office of the Assessing Officer. Thereafter, the respondent had requested the Assessing Officer to furnish the copy of the order passed by the learned Commissioner which was supplied to him on 29.11.2012. Before the learned ITAT, it was the case on behalf of the assessee – respondent herein that the order passed by the learned Commissioner was beyond the period of limitation prescribed/mentioned under Section 263 (2) of the Act. Vide order dated 04.04.2013 the learned ITAT accepted the contention on behalf of the assessee – respondent herein and allowed the appeal filed by the assessee by holding that the revision order passed by the learned Commissioner was passed beyond the period of limitation.

2.3 Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the order passed by the learned ITAT quashing and setting aside the revisional order passed by learned Commissioner under Section 263 of the Act and holding that the order passed by the learned Commissioner was beyond the period of limitation prescribed under Section 263 (2) of the Act, the revenue – appellant herein preferred appeal before the High Court, raising the following substantial question of law:

    "Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the case, the Tribunal had applied its mind and was right in holding that the revision order of the Commissioner of Income Tax under section 263 dated 26.3.2012 revising the assessment order dated 31.12.2010 is barred by limitation provided under section 263(2) by assuming that the last date for passing the assessment order is 31.3.2012 and on the ground that the order was served on 29.11.2012?"

2.4 By the impugned judgment and order, the High Court has dismissed the said appeal and has confirme

    Click Here to Read the rest of this document
    1
    2
    3
    4
    5
    6
    7
    8
    9
    10
    11
    SupremeToday Portrait Ad
    supreme today icon
    logo-black

    An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

    Please visit our Training & Support
    Center or Contact Us for assistance

    qr

    Scan Me!

    India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

    For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

    whatsapp-icon Back to top