Back
2024 Supreme(SC) 858
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Abhay S. Oka, Augustine George Masih, JJ.
M/s. Shriram Investments – Appellant
Versus
The Commissioner of Income Tax III Chennai – Respondent
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 6274 OF 2013
Decided On : 04-10-2024
For the Appellant(s) : Mr. T. Harish Kumar, AOR
For the Respondent(s): Mr. N Venkataraman, A.S.G. Mr. Arijit Prasad, Sr. Adv. Mr. Shashank Bajpai, Adv. Mr. Raj Bahadur Yadav, AOR Mr. H R Rao, Adv. Mrs. Shweta Singh Verma, Adv. Mr. Prashant Singh Ii, Adv. Mr. Santosh Kumar, Adv. Mr. Navanjay Mahapatra, Adv.
IMPORTANT POINT
Revised return – Assessing Officer has no jurisdiction to consider claim made by assessee in revised return filed after time prescribed by Section 139(5) for filing a revised return had already expired.
Headnote:
Income Tax Act, 1961 – Sections 139(5) and 254 – Revised return – Limitation – Tribunal has not exercised its power under Section 254 of IT Act to consider the claim – Instead, Tribunal directed Assessing Officer to consider appellant's claim – Assessing Officer had no jurisdiction to consider claim made by assessee in revised return filed after time prescribed by Section 139(5) for filing a revised return had already expired – Impugned judgment of High Court upheld. (Paras 8 and 9)
Facts of the case:
By impugned judgment, High Court proceeded to set aside order of Tribunal on the ground that after revised return was barred by time, there was no provision to consider claim made by appellant.
Findings of Court:
No reason to interfere with impugned judgment of High Court.
Result : Appeal dismissed.
JUDGMENT
ABHAY S. OKA, J.
FACTUAL ASPECTS
1. The appellant-assessee filed a return of income on 19th November 1989 under the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short, ‘IT Act’) for the assessment year 1989-90. On 31st October 1990, the appellant filed a revised return. As per intimation issued under Section 143(1)(a) of the IT Act on 27th August 1991, the appellant paid the necessary tax amount. On 29th October 1991, the appellant filed another revised return. The assessing officer did not take cognizance of the said revised return. Therefore, the appellant preferred an appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) (for short, ‘CIT (Appeals)’). By the order dated 21st July 1993, the CIT (Appeals) dismissed the appeal on the ground that in view of Section 139(5) of the IT Act, the revised return filed on 29th October 1991 was barred by limitation.
2. Being aggrieved, the appellant-assessee preferred an appeal before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (for short, ‘the Tribunal). The Tribunal partly allowed the appeal by remanding the case back to the file of the assessing officer. The assessing officer was directed to consider the assessee’s claim regarding the deduction of deferred revenue expenditure. The respondent Department preferred an appeal before the High Court of Judicature at Madras. By the impugned judgment, the High Court proceeded to set aside the order of the Tribunal on the ground that after the revised return was barred by time, there was no provision to consider the claim made by the appellant.
SUBMISSIONS
3. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant has taken us through the orders of the Tribunal and the High Court. He relies upon a decision of this Court in the case of Wipro Finance Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income Tax1, 2022 (137) taxmann.com 230 (SC). The learned counsel pointed out that the Tribunal did not direct consideration of the revised return but the Tribunal was rightly of the view that the assessing officer can consider claim made by the appellant regarding deduction of deferred revenue expenditure in accordance with law. He submitted that the appellant was entitled to make a claim during the course of the assessment proceedings which otherwise was omitted to be specifically claimed in the return.
4. Learned ASG relied upon decisions of this Court in the case of Goetzge (India) Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income Tax2, (2006) 157 Taxman 1 (SC) and Principal Commissioner of Income Tax & Anr. v. Wipro Limited3, (2022) 446 ITR 1. He submitted that after the revised return was barred by limitation, there was no question of considering the claim for deduction made by the appellant in the revised return. He submitted that the High Court was absolutely correct in coming to the conclusion that after the revised return was barred by limitation, the assessing officer had no jurisdiction to consider the case of the appellant.
CONSIDERATION OF SUBMISSIONS
5. We have carefully considered the submissions made across the bar. We have carefully perused the judgment of this Court in the case of Wipro Finance Ltd1. The issue which arose before this Court was not regarding the power of the assessing officer to consider the claim after the revised return was barred by time. This Court considered the appellate power of the Appellate Tribunal under Section 254 of the IT Act. Paragraphs 10 and 11 of the said decision in the case of Wipro Finance Ltd1 read thus:-
“10. The learned ASG appearing for the department had faintly argued that since the appellant in its return had taken a conscious explicit plea with regard to the part of the claim being ascribable to capital expenditure and partly to revenue expenditure, it was not open for the appellant to plead for the first time before the ITAT that the entire claim must be treated as revenue expenditure. Further, it was not open to the ITAT to entertain such fresh claim for the first time. This submission needs to be stated to be rejected. In the first place, the ITAT was conscious ab
