Case Note & Summary
The appellant-assessee, M/s. Shriram Investments, filed a return of income on 19 November 1989 for the assessment year 1989-90 under the Income Tax Act, 1961. A revised return was filed on 31 October 1990, and an intimation under Section 143(1)(a) was issued on 27 August 1991, upon which the appellant paid the tax. On 29 October 1991, the appellant filed another revised return, which the assessing officer did not take cognizance of. The appellant appealed to the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), who dismissed the appeal on the ground that the revised return was barred by limitation under Section 139(5) of the IT Act. The appellant then appealed to the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, which partly allowed the appeal by remanding the case to the assessing officer with a direction to consider the claim regarding deduction of deferred revenue expenditure. The Revenue appealed to the High Court of Judicature at Madras, which set aside the Tribunal's order, holding that after the revised return was barred by time, there was no provision to consider the claim. The Supreme Court considered the submissions. The appellant relied on Wipro Finance Ltd. v. CIT, arguing that the Tribunal correctly directed the assessing officer to consider the claim. The Revenue relied on Goetze (India) Ltd. v. CIT and Principal CIT v. Wipro Limited, arguing that the assessing officer had no jurisdiction to consider a claim made after the limitation period. The Supreme Court held that the assessing officer had no jurisdiction to consider the claim made in the revised return filed after the expiry of the time prescribed by Section 139(5). The Tribunal had not exercised its power under Section 254 but had directed the assessing officer, which was impermissible. The appeal was dismissed.
Headnote
A) Income Tax - Revised Return - Limitation - Section 139(5) of Income Tax Act, 1961 - The assessee filed a revised return after the expiry of the period prescribed under Section 139(5). The assessing officer did not take cognizance of the revised return. The Tribunal directed the assessing officer to consider the claim for deduction of deferred revenue expenditure. The High Court set aside the Tribunal's order. The Supreme Court held that the assessing officer had no jurisdiction to consider the claim made in the revised return filed after the time prescribed by Section 139(5) had expired. The appeal was dismissed. (Paras 1-9) B) Income Tax - Appellate Tribunal - Powers - Section 254 of Income Tax Act, 1961 - The Tribunal, in this case, did not exercise its power under Section 254 to consider the claim itself but directed the assessing officer to consider the claim. The Supreme Court noted that the assessing officer had no jurisdiction to consider the claim as the revised return was barred by limitation. The decision in Wipro Finance Ltd. v. CIT, which dealt with the Tribunal's appellate powers under Section 254, was distinguished. (Paras 5, 8)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the assessing officer can consider a claim made by the assessee in a revised return filed after the expiry of the limitation period under Section 139(5) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
Final Decision
The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the assessing officer had no jurisdiction to consider the claim made in the revised return filed after the time prescribed by Section 139(5) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 had expired. The impugned judgment of the High Court was upheld.
Law Points
- Revised return barred by limitation under Section 139(5) of Income Tax Act
- 1961
- Assessing Officer cannot entertain claim made after expiry of time for filing revised return
- Tribunal cannot direct Assessing Officer to consider claim in barred revised return
- Section 254 of IT Act does not empower Assessing Officer to consider time-barred claims
