In case of an assessee, the Assessing Officer passed an order u/s 143(3) on 15/12/2022. CIT passed the order u/s 263 on 26.03.2025 holding that the…

Issue Involved: The issue under consideration is whether the revision order which is passed within 2 years from the end of the financial year in which order sought to be revised was passed but received by the assessee thereafter, is considered as beyond the period of limitation prescribed under section 263 (2) . Provision applicable: As per section 263 (2) , no revision order shall be made after the expiry of two years from the end of the financial year in which the order sought to be revised was passed. Analysis: Sub-section (2) of section 263 mandates that no revision order shall be "made" after the expiry of two years from the end of the financial year in which the order sought to be revised was passed. The word used is "made" and not the order "received" by the assessee. Even the word "dispatch" is not mentioned in section 263 (2) . The provisions of the statute are to be read as they are and nothing is to be added or taken away from the provisions of the statute. Therefore, once it is established that the order under section 263 was made or 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) . Conclusion: In the present case, revision order under section 263 was passed on 26.3.2025 before the expiry of two years i.e., 31.3.2025 from the end of the F.Y. 2022-23 in which assessment order u/s 143 (3) was passed. Thus, the revision order is within the period of limitation prescribed under section 263 (2) . Note – The facts given in the question are similar to the facts in CIT v. Mohammed Meeran Shahul Hameed (2021) 438 ITR 288 (SC). The above answer is based on the rationale of the Apex Court ruling in the said case.