2024 (10) TMI 313

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....nother 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 deduc....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ed 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:- ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... in Goetze (India) Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Income Tax in support of the objection pressed before us that it is not open to entertain fresh claim before the ITAT. According to him, the decision in National Thermal Power Co. Ltd. merely permits raising of a new ground concerning the claim already mentioned in the returns and not an inconsistent or contrary plea or a new claim. We are not impressed by this argument. For, the observations in the decision in Goetze (India) Ltd. itself make it amply clear that such limitation would apply to the "assessing authority", but not impinge upon the plenary powers of the ITAT bestowed under Section 254 of the Act. Civil Appeal No.6274 of 2013 Page 5 of 7 In other words, this decision is of no avail to t....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....essment year." ( emphasis added ) In the case of Wipro Limited3, in paragraph no.9, this Court held thus: "9. In such a situation, filing a revised return under section 139(5) of the Income-tax Act claiming carrying forward of losses subsequently would not help the assessee. In the present case, the assessee filed its original return under section 139(1) and not under section 139(3). Therefore, the Revenue is right in submitting that the revised return filed by the assessee under section 139(5) can only substitute its original return under section 139(1) and cannot transform it into a return under section 139(3), in order to avail of the benefit of carrying forward or set-off of any loss under section 80 of the Income-tax Act. The as....