COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CHENNAI versus MOHAMMED MEERAN SHAHUL HAMEED

Citation: [2021] 8 S.C.R. 758 · Decided: 07-10-2021 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: M.R. SHAH · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
758
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2021] 8 S.C.R.
[2021] 8 S.C.R. 758
758
THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CHENNAI
v.
MOHAMMED MEERAN SHAHUL HAMEED
(Civil Appeal No.6204 of 2021)
OCTOBER 07, 2021
[M.R. SHAH AND A.S. BOPANNA, JJ.]
Income Tax Act, 1961 – s.263 – Revision order passed under
– When not barred by period of limitation provided u/s.263(2) –
Held: Once it is established that the order u/s.263 was made/passed
within the period of two years from the end of the financial year in
which the order sought to be revised was passed, such an order is
not beyond the period of limitation prescribed u/s.263(2) – Receipt
of the order passed u/s. 263 by the assessee has no relevance for
the purpose of calculating the period of limitation provided u/
s.263(2) – On facts, order passed by Commissioner u/s.263 was
within the period of limitation prescribed u/s.263(2) – Interpretation
of Statutes.
Allowing the appeal, the Court
HELD: 1.1 On a fair reading of sub-section (2) of Section
263, Income Tax Act, 1961 as mandated by sub-section (2) of
Section 263 no order under Section 263 of the Act shall be “made”
after the expiry of two years from the end of the financial year in
which the order sought to be revised was passed. Therefore the
word used is “made” and not the order “received” by the
assessee. Even the word “dispatch” is not mentioned in Section
263 (2). Therefore, once it is established that the order under
Section 263 was made/passed within the period of two years from
the end of the financial year in which the order sought to be
revised was passed, such an order cannot be said to be beyond
the period of limitation prescribed under Section 263 (2) of the
Act. Receipt of the order passed under Section 263 by the
assessee has no relevance for the purpose of counting the period
of limitation provided under Section 263 of the Income Tax Act.
In the present case, the order was made/passed by the
Commissioner on 26.03.2012 and according to the department it
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
759
was dispatched on 28.03.2012. The relevant last date for the
purpose of passing the order under Section 263 considering the
fact that the assessment was for the financial year 2008-09 would
be 31.03.2012 and the order might have been received as per
the case of the assessee-respondent herein on 29.11.2012.
However, the date on which the order under Section 263 has
been received by the assessee is not relevant for the purpose of
calculating/considering the period of limitation provided under
Section 263 (2) of the Act. If the interpretation made by the High
Court and the 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. The word used is “ made” and
not the “receipt of the order”. As per the cardinal principle of law
the provision of the statue/act is to be read as it is and nothing is
to be added or taken away from the provision of the statue.
Therefore, the High Court has erred in holding that the
order under Section 263 of the Act passed by the Commissioner
was barred by period of limitation, as provided under sub-section
(2) of Section 263 of the Act. The order passed by the
Commissioner under Section 263 of the Income Tax Act was
within the period of limitation prescribed under sub-section (2)
of Section 263 of the Act. [Paras 4.3 - 5][763-B-H; 764-A-B]
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No.6204 of
2021.
From the Judgment and Order dated 03.07.2019 of the High Court
of Judicature at Madras in Tax Case Appeal No.429 of 2019.
Vikramjit Banerjee, ASG, Rupesh Kumar, Ms. Purnima Bhat, Nalin
Kohli, Sughosh Subramanyam, Raj Bahadur Yadav, Mrs. Anil Katiyar,
Advs. for the Appellant.
R. Sivaraman, K. Parameshwar, Advs. for the Respondent.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
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
THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CHENNAI v.
MOHAMMED MEERAN SHAHUL HAMEED
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
760
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2021] 8 S.C.R.
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
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.