MANU/SC/0813/2021

True Court CopyTM English

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Civil Appeal No. 6204 of 2021

Assessment Year: 2008-2009

Decided On: 07.10.2021

Appellants: The Commissioner of Income Tax, Chennai
Vs.
Respondent: Mohammed Meeran Shahul Hameed

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:
M.R. Shah and A.S. Bopanna

JUDGMENT

M.R. Shah, J.

1. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and order dated 03.07.2019 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Madras in Tax Case Appeal No. 429 of 2019, by which the High Court has dismissed the said appeal preferred by the revenue and has confirmed the order dated 04.04.2013 passed by the learned Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as the learned ITAT) in ITA No. 2244/Mds/2012, the revenue has preferred the present appeal.

2. The facts leading to the present appeal in nutshell are as under:

2.1. The Assessing Officer (hereinafter referred to as the AO) passed an assessment order Under Section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) for the assessment year (AY) 2008-09 vide assessment order dated 30.12.2010. 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 on 01.02.2012. The Assessee-Respondent herein filed written submissions on 07.03.2012 and 12.03.2012. That the learned Commissioner passed an order Under Section 263 of the Act on 26.03.2012 holding that the Assessing Officer had failed to make relevant and necessary enquiries and to make correct assessment of income after due application of mind and thus 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 order passed by the learned Commissioner in exercise of powers Under Section 263 of the Act was challenged by the Assessee-Respondent herein before the learned ITAT. At this stage, it is required to be noted that the order passed Under Section 263 of the Act was dispatched by the office of the Commissioner on 28.03.2012.

2.2. The Assessee-Respondent herein filed an appeal before the learned ITAT on 29.11.2012 submitting that it had come to know about the revision order only when he received notice dated 06.08.2012 Under Section 143(2) read with Section 263 of the Act from the office of the Assessing Officer. Thereafter, the Respondent had requested the Assessing Officer to furnish the copy of the order passed by the learned 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 prescribed/mentioned Under Section 263(2) of the Act. Vide order dated 04.04.2013 the learned ITAT accepted the contention on behalf of the Assessee-Respon........