Supreme Court Introduces Professional Bail Bondsperson Rules 2026 To Curb Rampant Fake Sureties Supreme Court Issues Comprehensive Guidelines For Foreign Nationals In NDPS Commercial Quantity Cases, Mandates Passport Deposition And Strict Surety Verification Supreme Court Issues Mandatory Guidelines To Curb Black Money In Elections, Directs Fast-Track Disposal Of Criminal Cases Against MPs And MLAs Same Set of Depositions Cannot Lead to Conviction of Some Accused and Acquittal of Others Without Distinct Reasoning: Supreme Court Victims Have Equal Constitutional Right To Speedy Trial: Supreme Court Section 12 Of Gangsters Act Does Not Freeze Other Parallel Proceedings, Its Sole Purpose Is To Resolve Clash Of Dates: Supreme Court Registration of a Will Does Not Dispense With Mandatory Proof of Execution and Attestation Under Section 68 of Evidence Act: Supreme Court Arbitration Pre-Deposit Clause Requiring Contractor To Deposit 10% Of Claim Amount Prior To Reference Violates Right To Sue And Article 14: Supreme Court Income Tax Settlement Order Passed Beyond Mandatory 18-Month Limitation Period Is Void, Rules Allahabad High Court Teacher's Abuse of Trust is Grave Concern, Not Mere Breach of Discipline: Delhi High Court Upholds POCSO Conviction, Raps School Principal For Discouraging Child Victim 'NO AID OF INTERPRETER, NO VIDEOGRAPHY': Gauhati High Court Acquits Man In Rape Case Involving Mentally Disabled Victim, Rules S.164 CrPC Statement Inadmissible Due To Procedural Non-Compliance Karnataka High Court Issues Comprehensive Guidelines Refund of Trap Money to Complainants Property Purchased Jointly By Husband And Wife Cannot Be Regarded As Ancestral Merely Because Co-Executants Signed Prior Sale Deed: Madras High Court Judicial Magistrate Holding Section 176(1A) CrPC Inquiry Is Empowered To Name Perpetrators Of Custodial Death: Madhya Pradesh High Court 'Mere Maintenance Order Cannot Prove Marriage Validity': Patna High Court Declares Woman Not Legally Wedded Wife For Failing To Prove 'Saptapadi' Under Hindu Marriage Act Woman Accused Under PMLA Is Exempt From Twin Conditions But Bail Depends On Facts, Not Gender Alone: Punjab & Haryana High Court

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