IN INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL , B BENCH, CHENNAI, BEFORE SHRI A.MOHAN ALANKAMONY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI G.PAVAN KUMAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER . I.T. A.No.113 4 Mds 2016 ( Ass essm ent Year: 2008- 09) M s. Narasimha Mills Pvt.Ltd., Vs Deputy Commissioner of 9 1, Mettupalayam Road, Income Tax, Central Circle-I(1), Narasimmanaickenpalayam, 46, M.G.Road, Chennai-34. Coimbatore-641 031. PAN: AABC T2058D ( Appellant) ( Respondent) Appellant by : Ms. S.Vidya, C.A Respondent by : Mr. Supriyo Pal, JCIT Da t e of h e ar in g : 6th July, 2016 D at e of Pr on oun c em ent : 15th September, 2016 ORDER Per A. Mohan Alankamony, AM:- This appeal is filed by assessee aggrieved by order of learned Principal Commissioner of Income Tax Central-1, Chennai dated 28.03.2016 in C.No.1523 C-I 15-16 passed under section 143(3) r.w.s. 147 & 263 of Act. 2. assessee has raised several grounds in its appeal; however crux of issue is that learned Principal Commissioner of Income Tax has erred in setting aside order of learned Assessing Officer by invoking 2 ITA No.1134 Mds 2016 provisions of section 263 of Act without any jurisdiction when it is barred by limitation. 3. Brief facts of case are that assessee is private limited company engaged in business of spinning mill filed its return of income for assessment year 2008-09 on 29.09.2009 declaring loss of Rs.1,09,27,756 -. case was selected for scrutiny and notice under section 143(2) was issued to assessee on 07.09.2009. Thereafter assessment was completed by learned Assessing Officer under section 143(3) of Act on 15.12.2010 disallowing expenditure of Rs.73,84,510 - claimed by assessee as compensation. Subsequently, case was once again taken up for scrutiny and assessment was completed on 26.03.2014 wherein learned Assessing Officer made further additions towards difference in rental income of Rs.3,94,751 -, disallowance of professional charges Rs.10,13,880 - and disallowance of maintenance expenditure 13,72,992 -. Pursuant to this assessment order dated 26.03.2014, learned Principal Commissioner of Income Tax invoked his powers under section 263 of Act vide his 3 ITA No.1134 Mds 2016 order dated 28.03.2016 and set aside assessment order for making further enquiries and verifications regarding applicability of section 79, disallowance of interest expenditure, rental of plant & machinery to M s. Thiruvalluvar Textiles Pvt.Ltd., and applicability of Wealth Tax. Aggrieved by order of learned Principal CIT under section 263 of Act, assessee is in appeal before us. 4. At outset, learned Authorized Representative submitted that learned Principal Commissioner of Income Tax has invoked his powers under section 263 of Act beyond period of limitation of two years from end of financial year in which order sought to be revised was passed. learned Authorized Representative further argued stating that order sought to be revised should be taken as original order passed under section 143(3) of Act which in case of assessee was on 15.12.2010. learned Authorized Representative relied in decision of Hon ble Apex Court in case of CIT Vs. Alagendran Finance Ltd. reported in 293 ITR 001 to justify his stant. 4 ITA No.1134 Mds 2016 5. learned Departmental Representative could not controvert to submissions of learned Authorized Representative. 6. We have heard rival submissions and carefully perused materials available on record. As pointed out by learned Authorized Representative Hon ble Apex Court in above made decision has made it clear as follows:- In respect of issue which was not subject matter of reassessment, limitation under section 263(2) would run from date of original assessment and revisional proceedings initiated in respect of such issue beyond period of two years from date of original assessment were barred by limitation. 7. From facts of case, it is evident and not disputed that original order passed by learned Assessing Officer under section 143(3) of Act was on 15.12.2010, while as learned Principal Commissioner of Income Tax has passed orders under section 263 of Act on 28.03.2016 which is well beyond three years period thereby violating provisions of section 263(2) of Act. 5 ITA No.1134 Mds 2016 Accordingly, order passed by learned Principal Commissioner of Income Tax is barred by limitation. Therefore, we hereby quash order passed by learned Principal Commissioner of Income Tax under section 263 of Act dated 28.03.2016 in case of assessee. 8. In result, appeal of assessee is allowed. Order pronounced in open court on 15th September, 2016 Sd - Sd -(G.Pavan Kumar) ( A.Mohan Alankamony ) Judicial Member Accountant Member Chennai, Dated 15th September, 2016 somu Copy to: 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. CIT(A) 4. CIT 5. DR 6. GF M/s. Narasimha Mills Pvt.Ltd. v. Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax, Central Circle-I(1), Chennai