Allowing the appeal of the revenue the Court held that the order was passed by the Commissioner on March 26, 2012 and according to the Department it was dispatched on March 28, 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 2008-09 would be March 31, 2012. The date on which the order was received was not relevant for the purpose of calculating or considering the period of limitation provided under section 263 (2) of the Act. The order passed was with in the period of limitation. Court also observed that the provision of the statute are to be as they are and nothing is to be added or taken away from the provisions of the statute. (AY. 2008-09) (Editorial: From the judgement of Madras High Court Tax Appeal No 429 of 2019 dt. 3-7-2019)
CIT v. Mohammed Meeran Shahul Hameed (2021) 438 ITR 288 / 322 CTR 867 /206 DTR 209 / 283 Taxman 454(SC)
S. 263 : Commissioner-Revision of orders prejudicial to revenue-Limitation-Order to be made within two years-Order passed and dispatched with in two years-Received the copy of order after eight months-Order is valid-Date of receipt is not relevant-Interpretation of taxing statute-The provision of the statute are to be as they are and nothing is to be added or taken away from the provisions of the statute. [S. 263(2)]