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: Supreme Court

1. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and order dated 03.07.2019 passed by the High 04.04.2013 passed by the learned Income Tax Appellate No.2244 Mds 2012 the revenue has preferred the present 2. The facts leading to the present appeal in nutshell are as 2.1 The Assessing Officer of the Income Tax Act for the 30.12.2010. The Commissioner of Income Tax initiated assessment order passed by the learned Assessing Officer 01.02.2012. The assessee respondent herein filed written submissions on 07.03.2012 and 12.03.2012. That the make necessary enquiries on the aspects mentioned in the order under Section 263. The order passed by the learned Act was challenged by the assessee respondent herein before the learned ITAT. At this stage it is required to be dated 06.08.2012 under Section 143 read with Section 263 of the Act from the office of the Assessing Officer Thereafter the respondent had requested the Assessing 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 order dated 04.04.2013 the learned ITAT accepted the revision order passed by the learned Commissioner was the learned ITAT quashing and setting aside the revisional the Act and holding that the order passed by the learned under Section 263 of the Act the revenue appellant herein preferred appeal before the High Court raising the Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the case the in holding that the revision order of the Commissioner of Income Tax under section order dated 31.12.2010 is barred by limitation provided under section 263(2) by assessment order is 31.3.2012 and on the ground that the order was served on 2.4 By the impugned judgment and order the High Court has dismissed the said appeal and has confirmed the order learned Commissioner under Section 263 of the Act was 2.5 Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned 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 passed by the Commissioner under Section 263 of the Act was barred by period of limitation provided under Section order under Section 263 was served on the assessee 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 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 therefore as such the issue involved in the present appeal 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 Court is right in holding that the relevant date for the 263(2) of the IT Act would be the date on which the order passed under Section 263 by the learned Commissioner is 4.2 While deciding the aforesaid issues and question of law financial year in which the order sought to be expiry of two years from the end of the financial year in the word used is “made” and not the order “received” by Section 263 of the Act and to add something which is not there in the section. As observed of the order”. As per the cardinal principle of law the under Section 263 of the Act passed by the learned In view of the above and for the reasons stated above the under Section 263 of the Income Tax Act was within the period of limitation prescribed under sub­section of Section 263 of the Act. The present appeal is allowed

Summary: 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, such an order cannot be said to be beyond the period of limitation prescribed under Section 263 (2) of the Act. as upheld by the Hon’ble Supreme Court through the learned bench lead by Justice M.R Shah in the case of The Commissioner of Income Tax, Chennai v. Mohammed Meeran Shahul Hameed (CIVIL APPEAL NO.6204 OF 2021).   The brief facts of the case are that the Assessing Officer passed an assessment order under Section 143 (3) of the Income Tax Act for the assessment year 2008­09. 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. The respondent filed written submissions stating 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 assessee – respondent herein filed an appeal before the learned ITAT submitting that it had come to know about the revision order only when he received notice under Section 143 (2) read with Section 263 of the Act from the office of the Assessing Officer. 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 holding that the revision order passed by the learned Commissioner was passed beyond the period of limitation. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the order passed by the learned ITAT the revenue – appellant herein preferred appeal before the High Court, raising the question that whether the Tribunal was right in holding that the revision order of the Commissioner of Income Tax under section 263 is barred by limitation. 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 barred by limitation. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court, the appellant herein has preferred the present appeal. Shri Vikramjit Banerjee, learned Additional Solicitor General appearing on behalf of the appellant has vehemently submitted that the High Court as well as the learned ITAT both have misconstrued and misinterpreted the provisions of Section 263. The order under Section 263 was served on the 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. 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. Shri R. Sivaraman, learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the respondent – assessee 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. After hearing the learned counsel on behalf of the respective parties at length, the Hon’ble Court held that “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.” Click here to read the Judgment