9911796707
TMI Blog2021 (10) TMI 363X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... be 31.03.2012 and the order might have been received as per the case of the assessee respondent herein on 29.11.2012 - 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. Therefore the High Court as such has misconstrued and has misinterpreted the provision of subsection (2) of Section 263 of the Act. If the interpretation made by the High Court and the learned 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 - word used is made and not the receipt of the order . As per the cardinal pr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sioner 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 ord ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... arned 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 pas ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on 263 was served on the assessee respondent herein on 29.11.2012 which was after the expiry of two years from the end of the financial year in which the order was sought to be revised. 3.2 It is vehemently submitted by learned ASG that subsection (2) of Section 263 of the Act provides that no order shall be made under subsection (1) of Section 263 after the expiry of two years from the end of the concerned financial year and the relevant date in the present case to pass the order under Section 263 would be 31.03.2012. It is submitted that in the present case the order in fact was passed on 26.03.2012 and in fact dispatched on 28.03.2012. It is submitted that therefore the order passed by the learned Commissioner under Section 263 wa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... order passed under Section 263 by the learned Commissioner is received by the assessee? 4.2 While deciding the aforesaid issues and question of law, Section 263 (2) of the Income Tax Act, which is relevant for our consideration is required to be referred to, which reads as under: (2) No order shall be made under subsection (1) after the expiry of two years from the end of the financial year in which the order sought to be revised was passed. 4.3 On a fair reading of subsection (2) of Section 263 it can be seen that as mandated by subsection (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. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rned 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. As observed hereinabove, 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 learned Commissioner was barred by period of limitation, as provided under subsection (2) of Section 263 of the Act. 5. In view of the above and for the reasons stated above the question of law framed is answered in favour of the reve ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
