M/S SHRIRAM INVESTMENTS vs. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX III CHENNAI

C.A. No.-006274-006274 - 2013Supreme Court2024 INSC 76004 October 2024Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ABHAY S. OKA7 pages
For Petitioner: T. HARISH KUMAR
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the Supreme Court hold?

The Supreme Court held that the assessing officer had no jurisdiction to consider a claim made in a revised return filed after the expiry of the time limit prescribed by Section 139(5). The Tribunal's direction to the assessing officer was therefore incorrect.

What were the facts?

The assessee filed a revised return of income which was barred by limitation under Section 139(5) of the IT Act. The CIT(A) dismissed the appeal, and the Tribunal, while partly allowing the appeal, remanded the case to the assessing officer to consider the claim for deferred revenue expenditure. The High Court set aside the Tribunal's order.

What were the issues?

Whether an assessing officer can consider a claim made in a revised return that is barred by limitation under Section 139(5) of the IT Act.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 139(5),Section 143(1)(a),Section 254

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cited by 6 judgments on BharatTax

See all citing judgments →

Counted from the text of the judgments hosted here. Most recent first.

Cases cited in this judgment(2)Show list

Detected automatically from the text. Citations are also linked where they appear in the judgment. The count shows how many other judgments on BharatTax rely on the same authority.

Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
2024 INSC 760 Civil Appeal No.6274 of 2013 Page 1 of 7 NON-REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO. 6274 OF 2013 M/s. Shriram Investments … Appellant versus The Commissioner of Income Tax III Chennai … Respondent

J U D G M E N T 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 O

The order continues below.

Read the full judgment

A free account opens 10 full judgments a month. Re-reading one you have already opened does not count again.

Create a free accountSign in

See plans and prices

The summary, the parties, the sections and the citations above are open to everyone and always will be. Only the text of the order and the PDF are metered.

More judgments on Section 139(5)

All 830 judgments and leading authorities on Section 139(5) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →