M/s. Shriram Investments Vs. The Commissioner of Income Tax III, Chennai (2024 INSC 760)

  1. Home
  2. /
  3. Publications
  4. /
  5. Case Snippets
  6. /
  7. M/s. Shriram Investments...

The appellant initially filed a return in November 1989 and revised it twice. The Income Tax Officer rejected the second revised return, declaring that it was barred by limitation u/s 139(5) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 which only allows a revised return to be filed before the earlier of two dates – one year from the end of the relevant assessment year or before the completion of the assessment.

The appellant approached the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) where the appeal was dismissed on grounds that the revised return was time-barred. The matter was then placed before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), which partly allowed the appeal but remanded the case back to the Assessing Officer, instructing him to consider the claim. A further appeal was preferred by the IT department to the Madras High Court where the ITAT’s decision was set aside and it was held that once the revised return was barred by limitation, there was no legal provision to entertain the appellant’s claim. Aggrieved by the High Court’s decision, the appellant approached the Supreme Court.

Finally the Apex Court upheld that the Assessing Officer had no jurisdiction to consider the claim and as such the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) had no authority to instruct the Assessing Officer to consider any claim made in case of a time-barred return. Relying on Goetzge (India) Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income Tax (2006) 204 CTR (SC)182 the court reiterated that the assessing officer cannot entertain any claim made by the assessee otherwise than by following the provisions of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Since there is no dispute that the revised return filed by the appellant was barred by limitation, the same could not be entertained.

Tags:

Let us help you!

If you need any help, please feel free to contact us. We will get back to you within one business day. Alternatively, if you're in a hurry, you can call us now

+91 9052538538
info@karavadi.in

Recent Case Snippets

Union of India Vs. Pranav Srinivasan (2024 INSC 792)

In Union of India v. Pranav Srinivasan (2024 INSC 792), the Supreme Court ruled that Pranav Srinivasan, a foreign national born in Singapore to Indian-origin parents, could not… Read more »

Supreme court chooses conclusive adjudication over procedural rigmarole with respect to Divorce at least at the final leg of litigation.

In this landmark case of Shilpa Sailesh v. Varun Sreenivasan 2023 INSC 468 a five-judge Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court, led by Justice Sanjiv Khanna, clarified the… Read more »

Manohara Vs. Konkan Railway Corporation Limited & Ors., 2024 INSC 693

The case involves a service dispute between S.D. Manohara (appellant) and Konkan Railway Corporation Limited & Ors. (respondents). The core issue is whether the appellant withdrew his resignation… Read more »

Disclaimer

The Rules and Regulations set forth by the Bar Council of India under Advocates Act, 1961 prohibit Advocates or Law Firms from advertising or soliciting work through public domain communications. This website is intended solely to provide information. Karavadi & Associates (“K&A”) does not aim to advertise or solicit clients through this platform. K & A disclaim any responsibility for decisions made by readers/visitors based solely on the content of this website.

By clicking 'AGREE,' readers/visitors agree and acknowledge that the information provided herein (a) does not constitute advertising or solicitation, and (b) is intended solely for their understanding of K & A services. By continuing to use this site, you consent to the use of cookies on your device as outlined in our Cookie Policy.