| Court: | Supreme Court |
| Head Notes: | The CIT, Chennai Vs Mohammed Meeran Shahul Hameed Sub-Whether the revision order u/s 263 of the Income-tax Act,1961 has to be served within two years from the end of the financial year in which the order sought to be revised was passed for the purpose of limitation? The Supreme Court of India settled one important principle of law in its order dated 7th October,2021 in the above case by holding that for the purpose of Section 263, the requirement in Section 263(2) is only to pass the order within the period as prescribed in the said section and there is no such requirement in such section to serve also the order so passed within the period so prescribed. While coming to said conclusion, the Hon’ble rejected the plea of ITAT and High Court which had ruled in favour of assessee observing that the word used in Section 263(2) 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. Thus an important limitation aspect is settled. Ramesh Patodia |
| Law: | Income-Tax Act |
| Section(s): | Section 263(2) of Income-tax Act,1961 |
| Counsel(s): | Counsels |
| Dowload Pdf File | Click here to download the file in pdf format |
| Uploaded By | CA Ramesh Patodia |
| Date of upload: | October 8, 2021 |
Leave a Reply