2021 INSC 0622
REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO.6204 OF 2021
The Commissioner of Income Tax, Chennai         ..Appellant(S)
Versus
Mohammed Meeran Shahul Hameed                    ..Respondent(S)
J U D G M E N T
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.  
1

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
2

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
3

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   confirmed   the   order
passed by learned ITAT holding that the order passed by the
learned   Commissioner   under   Section   263   of   the   Act   was
4

barred   by   limitation.   The   High   Court   held   that   the   date   on
which   the   order   was   received   by   the   assessee   –   respondent
herein is the relevant date for the purpose of determining the
period of limitation under Section 263 (2) of the Act. 
2.5 Feeling   aggrieved   and   dissatisfied   with   the   impugned
judgment and order passed by the High Court, the revenue –
appellant herein has preferred the present appeal.     
3. Shri Vikramjit Banerjee, learned Additional Solicitor General
(ASG)   appearing   on   behalf   of   the   revenue   –   appellant   has
vehemently   submitted   that   the   High   Court   as   well   as   the
learned ITAT both have misconstrued and misinterpreted the
provision of Section 263, more particularly sub­section (2) of
Section   263   of   the   Act.   It   is   submitted   that   the   High   Court
has erred in holding that the revision order dated 26.03.2012
passed   by   the   Commissioner   under   Section   263   of   the   Act
was   barred   by   period   of   limitation   provided   under   Section
263 (2) of the Act.        
3.1 It   is   submitted   that   the   High   Court   has   materially   erred   in
holding that the order passed under Section 263 is barred by
limitation provided under Section 263 (2) on the ground that
order   under   Section   263   was   served   on   the   assessee   –
5

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   was   within   the   period   of   limitation
prescribed under Section 263 (2) of the Act. 
3.3 Shri   R.   Sivaraman,   learned   Advocate   appearing   on   behalf   of
the   respondent   –   assessee   relying   upon   para   15   of   the
counter   affidavit   has   submitted   that   as   such   the   order
passed   by   the   learned   Commissioner   under   Section   263   of
the   Act   has   been   acted   upon   before   it   was   set   aside   by
learned   ITAT   and   thereafter   a   fresh   assessment   order   has
been   passed   by   the   Assessing   Officer.   It   is   submitted   that
6

therefore   as   such   the   issue   involved   in   the   present   appeal
has become academic. 
4. We   have   heard   the   learned   counsel   appearing   on   behalf   of
the   respective   parties   at   length.   Though   it   is   the   case   on
behalf   of   the   respondent   –   assessee   that   by   now   the   issue
involved   in   the   present   appeal   has   become   academic,
considering   the   fact   that   the   question   of   law   raised   in   the
present   appeal   is   the   pure   question   of   law   and   therefore   we
are inclined to decide the said question of law.
4.1 The   short   question   of   law   which   is   posed   for   consideration
before  this  court   is,   whether  in   the   facts  and   circumstances
of the case, the High Court and the learned ITAT are right in
holding   that   the   order   passed   by   the   learned   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   the   learned   Commissioner   is
received by the assessee?
7

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.   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
8

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   learned   Commissioner   on   26.03.2012
and   according   to   the   department   it   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   2008­09   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   as   observed   hereinabove,   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.
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.   As   observed
hereinabove,   the   word   used   is   “ made ”   and   not   the   “ receipt
of   the   order ”.   As   per   the   cardinal   principle   of   law   the
9

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 revenue –
appellant   and   against  the   assessee   –  respondent  herein   and
it is held that the order passed by the learned 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.   The   present   appeal   is   allowed
accordingly. No costs.          
…………………………………J.
         (M. R. SHAH)
…………………………………J.
(A. S. BOPANNA)
New Delhi, 
October 07, 2021.
10