The Supreme Court has held that an assessee cannot use revision proceedings under Section 264 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, to raise a fresh claim that should have been made through a revised return filed within the prescribed time.

A bench of Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra and Justice Shree Chandrashekhar clarified that the revisional authority can entertain a new question of law arising from facts already available before the assessing authority, but cannot consider a fresh claim founded on facts outside that record.

Buy Now: Direct tax (Income Tax) E-Magazine September 2026

The corporation filed its income tax return for assessment year 2006–07 within time, declaring a loss of ₹1,94,48,311. The Assessing Officer subsequently issued notices under Sections 143(2) and 142(1) of the Income Tax Act.

During the assessment proceedings, the corporation submitted a petition seeking revision of its return. However, this was not taken into account when the Assessing Officer passed the assessment order on December 23, 2008.

The assessment resulted in a demand of ₹7,58,33,470 towards tax, surcharge and education cess, along with interest of ₹2,50,25,022 under Section 234B. The total demand stood at ₹10,08,58,492.

The corporation pursued revision before the Commissioner of Income Tax. The revisional authority declined to interfere, holding that a fresh claim after filing the original return could be made only through a revised return.

A subsequent appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) was dismissed as not maintainable because the corporation had already availed itself of the revision remedy under Section 264. The High Court dismissed its writ petition challenging the assessment, revision and appellate orders, along with its request for a refund of tax allegedly collected without authority of law.

Before the Supreme Court, the corporation relied on Wipro Finance Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income Tax, Dwarka Nath v. Income Tax Officer and Sirpur Paper Mills Ltd. v. Commissioner of Wealth Tax to argue that a fresh claim could be raised before the revisional authority.

The department relied on Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax v. M/s. Om Siddhakala Associates, decided on August 5, 2026, to contend that a fresh claim could not be introduced in revision without a revised return filed in accordance with law.

The bench held that the issue stood settled by Om Siddhakala Associates. In that decision, the Court had rejected an attempt to invoke Section 264 to obtain relief that had not been claimed in the original return or through a revised return within the statutory period.

Applying that principle, the Court held that revision proceedings could not become a means of changing a return after the time permitted by law had expired.

The Court distinguished the authorities cited by the corporation, explaining that they did not resolve the specific issue concerning the failure to file a revised return within time.

In particular, it referred to Shriram Investments v. Commissioner of Income Tax, which had explained that Wipro Finance concerned the appellate powers of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal under Section 254.

The bench also reiterated the distinction recognised in Goetze (India) Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income Tax: restrictions on an Assessing Officer entertaining a claim otherwise than through a revised return do not curtail the Tribunal’s powers under Section 254.

The present dispute, however, concerned the scope of revision under Section 264 and the attempt to introduce a fresh claim without complying with the revised-return requirements.

The Supreme Court cautioned that allowing fresh claims based on facts that were never before the Assessing Officer would leave assessment proceedings open indefinitely.

It explained that the revisional authority’s power extends to considering a new question or point of law for the first time, provided it arises from facts already available before the assessing authority. That power does not permit an assessee to introduce a claim going beyond those facts.

Finding no merit in the corporation’s challenge, the Court dismissed both appeals and disposed of the pending applications.

Membership Required to Access Case Details & Order Copy

To view the complete Case Details and Download Order Copy, you must have an active membership. Please subscribe to continue.

Read More: PAN Misuse | Tax Demand Can’t Rest Solely On Form 26AS Without Independent Inquiry: Delhi HC