Multiple NDPS Cases Without Conviction Cannot Justify Indefinite Pre-Trial Custody: Himachal Pradesh HC Grants Bail in Heroin Case Departmental Findings Based On Witnesses Discredited By Criminal Court Constitute 'No Evidence': Orissa High Court Upheld Constable's Reinstatement When Pension Rules Are Capable of More Than One Interpretation, Courts Must Lean in Favour of the Employee: MP High Court Wife Left Voluntarily — But Minor Children Cannot Be Taken Away: Madras High Court Intervenes in Habeas Corpus for Two Toddlers Where Consideration Does Not Pass in Terms of the Sale Deed, the Sale Deed Is Null and Void, a Nullity and Dead Letter in the Eyes of Law: Jharkhand High Court National Award-Winning Director's Script Was Registered Two Years Before Complainant Even Wrote His — Supreme Court Quashes Copyright Infringement Case Against 'Kahaani-2' Director IBC Clean Slate Does Not Wipe Out Right of Set-Off as Defence: Supreme Court Draws Critical Distinction Between Counterclaim and Defensive Plea GST Assessment Challenged on Natural Justice Grounds Tagged to Criminal Writ in Supreme Court Railway Cannot Escape Compensation by Crying 'Trespass' Without Eyewitness: Bombay High Court Reverses Tribunal, Awards Rs. 4 Lakh to Widow of Rolex Employee Master Plan Cannot Be Held Hostage to Subsequent Vegetation Growth — Supreme Court Settles Deemed Forest vs. Statutory Planning Conflict Contempt | Sold Property Despite Court's Restraint Order: Andhra Pradesh High Court Sentences One Month's Imprisonment Tractor-Run-Over Death Was An Accident, Not Murder: Allahabad High Court Acquits Three Accused Fast-Tracking Cannot Bury Justice: Supreme Court Sets Aside 21-Year-Delayed Appeal Decided Without Informing Convict Panchayat Act's Demolition Powers Cease Once Plot Falls Under Development Authority's Planning Area: Calcutta High Court Actual Date Of Woman Director's Appointment A Triable Issue; Prosecution Can't Be Quashed Merely On Claims Of Compliance: Calcutta High Court A Website Cannot Whisper and Then Punish: Delhi High Court Reins in DSSSB Over E-Dossier Rejections Mutual Consent Alone Ends the Marriage: Gujarat High Court Affirms Mubarat Divorce Without Formalities State Cannot Hide Behind "Oral Consent" or Delay When It Builds Roads Through Citizens' Land Without Due Process: Himachal Pradesh HC Show Cause Notice Alone Cannot Cut a Retired Engineer's Pension: Jharkhand High Court Bovine Smuggling Is a Law and Order Problem, Not a Public Order Threat: J&K High Court Quashes PSA Detention Article 22(2) Constitution | Production Beyond 24 Hours Not Fatal If Delay Explained And Travel Time Excluded: Karnataka High Court Article 227 Is Not an Appellate Power: High Court Refuses to Reassess Tribunal Findings on Pension Claim: Kerala High Court High Court Cannot Call A Complaint "False And Malicious" Without First Finding It Discloses No Cognizable Offence: Supreme Court When Jurisdiction Fails, Remand Cannot Cure It: Supreme Court Sets Aside Order Sending MSME Award Dispute Back to Functus Officio Facilitation Council Selling Inferior Pipes as 'Jain' or 'Jindal Gold' Brand Is Not Just a Civil Wrong — It's Cheating: MP High Court Refuses to Quash FIR Went to Collect Chit Fund Money, Got Arrested in Prostitution Raid: Telangana High Court Grants Bail to Woman Accused of Being Sub-Organiser Axe Blow During Sudden Quarrel Falls Under Exception 4 To Section 300 IPC, Not Murder: Orissa High Court Modifies Conviction To Culpable Homicide

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