Orissa Rural Housing Development Corporation Ltd. vs Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax

Headnote Court Copy Facts Arguments Court observation Judicial Analysis Case Map Category Hierarchy Table of Content

2026 Supreme(SC) 1245

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
PRASHANT KUMAR MISHRA, SHREE CHANDRASHEKHAR, JJ.
Orissa Rural Housing Development Corporation Ltd. – Appellant
Versus
The Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax & Ors. – Respondents
Civil Appeal No(s). 7249-7250 of 2015
Decided On : 08-10-2026

Important Points

Revisional jurisdiction under Section 264 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, cannot be invoked to raise a fresh claim if the assessee failed to file a revised return within the prescribed statutory period.

Subject

Taxation Law - Direct Tax

Act Referred

INCOME TAX ACT: S.139(5), S.142(1), S.143(2), S.254, S.264

Headnote

(A) Income Tax Act, 1961 - Sections 264, 143(2), 142(1), 234B, 254 - Fresh claim before Revisional Authority in absence of revised return - If a revised return was not submitted within the prescribed time, and the assessee has not claimed deductions by filing such return, the same cannot be availed by invoking revisional jurisdiction under Section 264 - Such an action would be an attempt to revise the return under the garb of a revision (Paras 8 and 11).

(B) Revisional Jurisdiction - Scope and ambit - Power of the Revisional Authority is for entertaining for the first time a new question of law or point of law, but does not extend to claims based on facts that were not available with the Assessing Authority (Para 13).

(C) Appellate Tribunal vs. Assessing Authority - The power of the Tribunal under Section 254 to entertain a point of law for the first time, provided the facts were before the Tribunal, is distinct from the power of the assessing officer or revisional authority to entertain a claim or deduction otherwise than by the filing of a revised return (Para 10).

Facts of the case:
The appellant filed a return for the assessment year 2006-07 disclosing a loss. The Assessing Officer passed an assessment order raising a significant tax demand including interest. The appellant sought a revision before the Commissioner of Income Tax, but the petition was dismissed on the ground that a fresh claim cannot be made after filing the original return except by way of a revised return. Subsequently, a first appeal was dismissed as not maintainable since the appellant had already availed the right of revision under Section 264. The High Court dismissed the writ petition challenging these orders.

Findings of Court:
The court found that because the revised return was not submitted within the statutory timeline, the appellant could not invoke revisional jurisdiction to raise a fresh claim. The court noted that the plenary powers of an Appellate Tribunal under Section 254 do not equate to the powers of a Revisional Authority or Assessing Officer regarding the entertainment of claims absent a revised return.

Issues: Whether a fresh claim can be raised before the Revisional Authority under Section 264 of the Income Tax Act without the filing of a revised return within the prescribed time.

Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the revisional power under Section 264 cannot be used to circumvent the requirement of filing a revised return. Allowing fresh claims based on new facts not provided to the Assessing Authority would make the assessment process endless and undermine the statutory procedure of assessment. The Revisional Authority is empowered to consider new questions of law, not to entertain fresh factual claims that should have been raised via a revised return.

Result: Appeals dismissed.

Advocates appeared:
For the Appellant(s) Mr. Siddhartha Chowdhury, AOR Mr. S K Bagaria, Sr. Adv. Mr. Snehasish Mukherjee, Adv. Mr. Shaffi Mather, Adv. Mr. Tamal Sanyal, Adv.
For the Respondent(s): Mr. N Venkataraman, A.S.G. Mr. Sudarshan Lamba, AOR Mr. V Chandrashekhara Bharathi, Adv. Mr. Gaurav Arya, Adv. Mr. Sushant Singh, Adv. Mr. Alok Kumar, Adv. Mr. Nakul Madhan, Adv.

ORDER

1. Under the impugned order, High Court has dismissed the writ petition preferred by the appellant, which in turn laid challenge to the order of assessment dated 23.12.2008; the order issued by the Commissioner of Income Tax, Bhubaneswar dated 11.03.2010 under Section 264 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short ‘IT ACT’), and the order dated 15.09.2010 passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-I, Bhubaneswar, with further prayer for refund of tax collected on the ground that such collection is without authority of law.

2. The appellant submitted its return for assessment year 2006-07 within time, disclosing total loss at Rs.1,94,48,311/-. Initially, the Assessing Officer issued notice to the appellant on 10.10.2007 under Section 143(2) of the IT Act and subsequently, a notice under Section 142(1) dated 03.10.2008 was issued to the appellant to produce accounts and documents mentioned in the notice.

3. The appellant filed a petition before the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1, Bhubaneswar for revising the return, however, the same was not taken account of when the Assessing Officer passed the assessment order on 23.12.2008 and raised a demand of Rs.7,58,33,470/- (towards tax, surcharge and education cess) and also charged interest under Section 234B of the IT Act for Rs.2,50,25,022/- totaling at Rs.10,08,58,492/-.

4. As against this order, appellant preferred a revision before the Commissioner of Income Tax along with a prayer for stay, which was rejected on 05.05.2009, against which appellant approached the Commissioner of Income Tax on 27.07.2009, however, the revision petition was dismissed refusing to interfere with the assessment, on the ground that the assessee after filing original return cannot make a fresh claim other than by way of filing a revised return.

5. The appellant thereafter, preferred first appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax which was dismissed on the ground that the appeal is not maintainable, as the appellant has already availed the right of filing a revision under Section 264 of the IT Act.

6. Learned counsel for the appellant would refer to the law laid down by this Court in Wipro Finance Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income Tax, (2022) 443 ITR 250 : 2022 SCC Online SC 675 Dwarka Nath v. Income Tax Officer, (1965) 57 ITR 349 : 1965 SCC Online SC 61 and Sirpur Paper Mills Ltd. v. Commissioner of Wealth Tax, (1970) 1 SCC 795 : 1970 (1) SCC 795 to argue that fresh claim can be raised before the Revisional Authority.

7. Per contra, learned counsel for the revenue would submit that in view of law laid down by this Court in Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax v. M/s. Om Siddhakala Associates , Civil Appeal No. 10175 of 2026 dated 05.08.2026, it is now well settled that in the absence of a revised return being filed in accordance with law, the appellant cannot raise a fresh claim before the Revisional Authority.

8. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, we are of the considered view that the issue as to whether a fresh claim can be raised before the Revisional Authority without filing a revised return is no longer res integra, inasmuch as in M/s. Om Siddhakala Associates (supra), this court has categorically held that when the revised return was not submitted within time, and the assessee having not claimed the deductions by filing a revised return, the same cannot be availed by invoking revisional jurisdiction. The following has been held by this Court in paragraphs 4 and 5 which are reproduced hereunder:

The respondent filed a revision invoking Section