The Supreme Court held that once a revised return of income is barred by limitation under Section 139(5) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, the Assessing Officer has no jurisdiction to entertain or examine any claim made on the basis of such time-barred revised return. The Court clarified that claims not made in the original return cannot be considered by the Assessing Officer unless they are made in accordance with the statutory provisions of the Act.

In the present case, the assessee filed a revised return beyond the permissible period prescribed under Section 139(5). The Assessing Officer declined to consider the revised return, and the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) upheld the rejection on the ground of limitation. Although the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal remanded the matter to the Assessing Officer with a direction to consider the assessee’s claim for deduction of deferred revenue expenditure, the High Court set aside the Tribunal’s order, holding that no such direction could be issued once the revised return itself was time-barred.

The Supreme Court affirmed the view of the High Court and held that the Tribunal erred in directing the Assessing Officer to consider a claim which the Assessing Officer was statutorily barred from examining. The Court relied upon the decision in Goetze (India) Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income Tax, which clearly lays down that the Assessing Officer cannot entertain claims otherwise than by a valid return filed in accordance with law.

The Court distinguished its earlier decision in Wipro Finance Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income Tax, clarifying that the said judgment dealt with the plenary powers of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal under Section 254 of the Act and not with the jurisdiction of the Assessing Officer. It was reiterated that while appellate authorities may have wider powers to consider new claims, such powers do not extend to the Assessing Officer when the revised return is filed beyond the prescribed limitation period.

Accordingly, the Supreme Court held that the Assessing Officer lacked jurisdiction to consider the assessee’s claim, and the appeal was dismissed, thereby upholding the judgment of the High Court.

 Source Link - https://api.sci.gov.in/supremecourt/2012/5564/5564_2012_6_1501_56302_Judgement_04-Oct-2024.pdf

Disclaimer

This content is shared strictly for general information and knowledge purposes only. Readers should independently verify the information from reliable sources. It is not intended to provide legal, professional, or advisory guidance. The author and the organisation disclaim all liability arising from the use of this content. The material has been prepared with the assistance of AI tools.