The Supreme Court has ruled that the date of receipt of assessment order is not relevant in computing the limitation period for Revision by the Principal Commissioner.
The assessee-respondent, Mohammed Meeran Shahul Hameed filed an appeal before the learned ITAT 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. Before the 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 under Section 263 (2) of the Act. The ITAT accepted the contention on behalf of the assessee-respondent and allowed the appeal filed by the assessee by holding that the revision order passed by the Commissioner was passed beyond the period of limitation.
However, the revenue department raised the issue whether 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 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.
The division bench of Justice M.R.Shah and Justice A.S.Bopanna held that the order passed by the Commissioner under Section 263 of the Income Tax Act was within the period of limitation prescribed under subsection (2) of Section 263 of the Act.
“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,” the Apex court noted.Subscribe Taxscan AdFree to view the Judgment