{"id":256314,"date":"2021-10-30T12:00:29","date_gmt":"2021-10-30T06:30:29","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/?p=256314"},"modified":"2021-11-04T13:43:45","modified_gmt":"2021-11-04T08:13:45","slug":"explained-section-263-of-income-tax-act-date-of-order-or-receipt-of-order-when-does-the-limitation-clock-starts-ticking","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2021\/10\/30\/explained-section-263-of-income-tax-act-date-of-order-or-receipt-of-order-when-does-the-limitation-clock-starts-ticking\/","title":{"rendered":"Explained| Section 263 of Income Tax Act: Date of order or receipt of order \u2013 When does the limitation clock starts ticking?"},"content":{"rendered":"

Supreme Court<\/strong>: Interpreting Section 263(2) of the Income\u00a0Tax\u00a0Act, 1961, the bench of MR Shah* <\/strong>and AS Bopanna, JJ has held that 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.<\/p>\n

Section 263 (2) of the Income Tax Act, reads as under:-<\/p>\n

\u201c(2) No order shall be made under sub\u00acsection (1) after the expiry of two years from the end of the financial year in which the order sought to be revised was passed.\u201d<\/p>\n

On a fair reading of sub-section (2) of Section 263, the Court noticed that as mandated by sub\u00acsection (2) of Section 263 no order under Section 263 of the Act shall be \u201cmade\u201d after the expiry of two years from the end of the financial year in which the order sought to be revised was passed.<\/p>\n

\n

\u201cTherefore, the word used is \u201cmade\u201d and not the order \u201creceived\u201d by the assessee. Even the word \u201cdispatch\u201d is not mentioned in Section 263(2).\u201d<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

Hence, 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.<\/p>\n

Holding that the word used is \u201cmade\u201d and not the \u201creceipt of the order\u201d, the Court noticed that,<\/p>\n

\n

\u201cAs 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.\u201d<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

[Commissioner of Income Tax v. Mohammed Meeran Shahul Hameed, 2021 SCC OnLine SC 901<\/b><\/a>, decided on 07.10.2021]<\/p>\n

\n

Counsels:<\/strong><\/p>\n

For Revenue: ASG Vikramjit\u00a0Banerjee<\/p>\n

For Respondents: Senior Advocate R.\u00a0Sivaraman<\/p>\n

\n

*Judgment by: Justice MR Shah <\/strong><\/p>\n

Know Thy Judge | Justice M. R. Shah<\/a><\/p><\/blockquote>\n