The Assessee has challenged the validity of the notice issued under S. 263 of the Act and the order passed thereon by the CIT. The High Court held that the CIT who passes order under S. 263 of the Act ought to satisfy himself that an adequate opportunity has been given to the Assessee to controvert the facts stated in the notice issued under S. 263 of the Act and to explain the circumstances surrounding such facts. However on facts no useful purpose would be served in providing an opportunity of being heard at this stage to the Assessee as S. 263(2) provides an outer limit in the statute hence petition in favour of Assessee. (ITA. No 853 of 2015 dt. 14-09-2017) (AY. 2008-09).
Tulsi Tracom Private Ltd .v. CIT (2017) 100 CCH 0013/ (2018) 161 DTR 148 (Delhi)(HC)
S. 263 : Commissioner – Revision of orders prejudicial to revenue –Order passed after expiry of two years from the end of the financial year was held to be bad in law . [S.260A ]