Readiness and Willingness Under Section 16(c) Is Not a Ritualistic Phrase — Plaintiff Must Prove It With Substance, Not Just Words: Karnataka High Court FIR in Disproportionate Assets Case Quashed: Patna High Court Slams SP for 'Non-Application of Mind' and 'Absence of Credible Source Information' Ownership of Vehicle Linked to Commercial Quantity of Heroin – Custodial Interrogation Necessary: Punjab & Haryana High Court Denies Anticipatory Bail under Section 482 BNSS Death Caused by Rash Driving Is Not a Private Dispute — No FIR Quashing on Basis of Compromise in Section 106 BNS Cases: Punjab & Haryana High Court No Bank Can Override Court Orders: Rajasthan High Court Slams Axis Bank for Unauthorized Withdrawal from Court-Ordered FD" Indian Courts Cannot Invalidate Foreign Arbitral Awards Passed Under Foreign Law: Madhya Pradesh High Court Enforces Texas-Based Award Despite Commercial Court’s Contrary Decree Sudden Quarrel over Mound of Earth — Not Murder but Culpable Homicide: Allahabad High Court Eligibility Flows from Birth, Not a Certificate Date: Delhi High Court Strikes Down Rule Fixing Arbitrary Cut-Off for OBC-NCL Certificates in CAPF (AC) Recruitment Bar Under Order II Rule 2 CPC Cannot Be Invoked Where Specific Performance Was Legally Premature Due To Statutory Impediments: P&H High Court Once a Court Declares a Department an Industry Under Section 2(j), State Cannot Raise the Same Objection Again: Gujarat High Court Slams Repetitive Litigation by Irrigation Department “How Could Cheques Issued in 2020 Be Mentioned in a 2019 Contract?”: Delhi High Court Grants Injunction in Forged MOA Case, Slams Prima Facie Fabrication Calling Wife by Her Caste Name in Public Just Before Suicide is Immediate Cause of Self-Immolation: Madras High Court Upholds Husband’s Conviction Under Section 306 IPC No Work No Pay Is Not a Universal Rule: Punjab & Haryana High Court Dock Identification Without Prior TIP Is Absolutely Useless: P&H High Court Upholds Acquittal in Attempt to Murder Case Filing Forged Court Pleadings in Union Government’s Name is Criminal Contempt: Karnataka High Court Sentences Litigant to Jail Execution of Will Proved, But Probate Justly Denied Due to Concealment of Property Sale: Delhi High Court Mere Designation Doesn’t Establish Criminal Liability: Bombay High Court Quashes Proceedings Against ICICI Officials in Octroi Evasion Case Fraud on Power Voids the Order: Supreme Court Quashes FIR Against Karnataka BJP Leader R. Ashoka, Slams Politically Motivated Prosecution Cause of Fire Is Immaterial If Fire Itself Is Insured Peril: Supreme Court Rebukes Insurer’s Repudiation Dragging a Trained Army Officer Up 20 Steps Without Resistance? The Story Lacks Credence: Supreme Court Upholds Acquittal in Army Officer’s Murder Semen Stains Alone Do Not Prove Rape: Supreme Court Acquits Doctor Accused of Rape No Mortgage, No SARFAESI: Supreme Court Rules Against NEDFi, Says Recovery Action in Nagaland Without Security Agreement Was Illegal Parity Cannot Be Denied by Geography: Supreme Court Holds Jharkhand Bound by Patna HC's Judgment, Orders Pay Revision for Industries Officer Once Power Flows Continuously from a Synchronized Turbine, It Is No Longer Infirm: Supreme Court Orders TANGEDCO to Pay Fixed Charges to Penna Electricity

Taxation Law | Assessing Officer Cannot Entertain Claims in Time-Barred Revised Returns: Supreme Court of India

07 October 2024 1:06 PM

By: sayum


Supreme Court of India, in M/s Shriram Investments v. The Commissioner of Income Tax III, Chennai (Civil Appeal No. 6274 of 2013), upheld the High Court's decision, dismissing an appeal regarding the submission of a revised income tax return filed after the statutory deadline. The Court ruled that once a revised return is barred by limitation under Section 139(5) of the Income Tax Act, the assessing officer lacks the jurisdiction to entertain any claims made in such a return.

The appellant, M/s Shriram Investments, filed its original income tax return on November 19, 1989, for the assessment year 1989-90, later submitting a revised return on October 29, 1991. However, the revised return was barred by limitation under Section 139(5) of the Income Tax Act. The assessing officer refused to consider the revised return, prompting the appellant to appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), which upheld the officer's decision. Although the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) partially allowed the appeal, remanding the matter to the assessing officer, the High Court set aside the Tribunal's order, ruling that the revised return was time-barred, leaving no provision for further consideration by the assessing officer.

The central legal question was whether an assessing officer has the power to entertain a revised return once the time limit prescribed by Section 139(5) of the Income Tax Act has expired. The appellant contended that their deferred revenue expenditure claim should still be considered, relying on judicial precedent, notably Wipro Finance Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income Tax. The appellant's argument was that, although the revised return was time-barred, the assessing officer should be able to assess claims arising during ongoing proceedings.

The respondent, represented by the learned Additional Solicitor General (ASG), countered by citing decisions in Goetze (India) Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income Tax and Principal Commissioner of Income Tax & Anr. v. Wipro Limited. The ASG argued that once the revised return is barred by time, the assessing officer has no jurisdiction to consider any new claims.

The Supreme Court, after reviewing the submissions and relevant case law, sided with the respondent. The Court noted that in Wipro Finance Ltd., the issue pertained to the appellate powers of the Tribunal under Section 254 of the Income Tax Act, not the assessing officer’s authority to entertain claims in a time-barred return. The Court clarified that, per Goetze (India) Ltd., an assessing officer cannot entertain any claims outside the statutory provisions of the Act, and Section 139(5) is explicit in its time constraints.

Further, the Court observed that the Tribunal, instead of exercising its powers under Section 254, wrongly directed the assessing officer to consider the claim. Since the assessing officer's jurisdiction is strictly limited by the timeframe outlined in Section 139(5), any claim in the revised return was deemed inadmissible. Consequently, the Supreme Court affirmed the High Court's ruling and dismissed the appeal.

The Supreme Court's decision in this case underscores the strict application of statutory time limits in the submission of revised returns under Section 139(5) of the Income Tax Act. It reaffirmed that assessing officers cannot entertain claims made in a time-barred return, further clarifying the jurisdictional boundaries in tax assessments.

Date of Decision: October 4, 2024

M/s Shriram Investments v. The Commissioner of Income Tax III, Chennai

Latest Legal News