2006 (3) TMI 75 - SC - Income Tax

Whether the appellant assessee could make a claim for deduction other than by filing a revised return - held that the power of the Tribunal under section 254, is to entertain for the first time a point of law provided the fact on the basis of which the issue of law can be raised before the Tribunal. The decision does not in any way relate to the power of the AO to entertain a claim for deduction otherwise than by filing a revised return - appeal is dismissed

Summary

Issues:
- Claim for deduction without filing a revised return.

Analysis:
The case involved a question regarding whether an appellant assessee could claim a deduction without filing a revised return for the assessment year 1995-96. The appellant initially filed the return on November 30, 1995, and later sought to claim a deduction through a letter to the Assessing Officer on January 12, 1998. The Assessing Officer disallowed the deduction, stating that there was no provision in the Income-tax Act to modify an application at the assessment stage without revising the return.

The appellant's appeal before the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) was successful, but the Department's further appeal before the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was allowed. The appellant then approached the Supreme Court, arguing that the Tribunal erred in upholding the Assessing Officer's decision. The appellant relied on a previous court decision to support the contention that it was permissible to raise legal points before the Appellate Tribunal.

The Supreme Court clarified that the power of the Tribunal under section 254 of the Income-tax Act was to consider a point of law for the first time if the relevant facts were presented before the Tribunal. However, this did not address the Assessing Officer's authority to entertain a claim for deduction without revising the return. In light of the circumstances, the Court dismissed the civil appeal, emphasizing that the issue was confined to the assessing authority's power and did not affect the Tribunal's jurisdiction under section 254. The Court ruled that there would be no order as to costs in this matter.