No Fresh Claim in s.264 Revision Without Revised Return: SC

No Revised Return, No Fresh Claim in Section 264 Revision: Supreme Court Dismisses Orissa Rural Housing Corporation's Appeals

Published: 13 October 2026 · NyayVidhan

The Supreme Court held that an assessee who has not filed a revised return in time cannot raise a fresh claim before the Commissioner in revision under Section 264 of the Income Tax Act. Reiterating Om Siddhakala Associates and Goetze (India), it said revision is for a new point of law on facts already before the Assessing Officer; otherwise assessments would never end (paras 8-13).

Key holdings

No fresh claim in Section 264 revision without a revised return filed in time (para 8).

Om Siddhakala Associates and Goetze (India) reiterated (paras 8, 10-11).

Wipro Finance, Dwarka Nath and Sirpur Paper Mills distinguished (paras 9, 12).

Revision is for new points of law on facts already before the Assessing Officer (para 13).

A wider reading would make assessments endless (para 11).

Judgment digest by NyayVidhan: a summary of the court's judgment, not its text. The judgment itself is the authoritative version.

Brief Facts

Orissa Rural Housing Development Corporation filed its return for AY 2006-07 in time, declaring a loss of ₹1,94,48,311 (para 2). Its petition to the Assistant Commissioner to revise the return was not taken into account, and the assessment of 23.12.2008 raised a demand of about ₹10.08 crore including Section 234B interest (para 3). The Commissioner dismissed its Section 264 revision because a fresh claim could be made only by a revised return, the CIT (Appeals) held its later appeal not maintainable, and the High Court dismissed its writ petition (paras 1, 4-5).

Court's Findings

Whether a fresh claim can be raised before the revisional authority without a revised return is no longer res integra: in Om Siddhakala Associates (05.08.2026) the Court held that a deduction not claimed by a revised return filed in time cannot be obtained by invoking Section 264, which would be revising the return under the garb of revision (para 8). Wipro Finance, Dwarka Nath and Sirpur Paper Mills were distinguishable, as none dealt with the effect of not filing a revised return in time (para 9). Goetze (India) had held that the Tribunal's Section 254 power to entertain a new point of law presupposes that the facts were before it (para 10). Reading the revisional power more widely would allow endless fresh claims on new facts never placed before the Assessing Officer and make assessments endless (para 11). Shriram Investments had already distinguished Wipro Finance (para 12). The revisional power is for a new question or point of law, not anything beyond the facts before the Assessing Authority (para 13).

Legal Principle

An assessee who has not claimed a deduction in its return or by a revised return filed in time cannot raise that fresh claim before the revisional authority under Section 264; revision is confined to new points of law on facts already before the Assessing Officer (paras 8-13).

Precedents Relied Upon

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax v. M/s. Om Siddhakala Associates Civil Appeal No. 10175 of 2026, decided on 05.08.2026
Followed Discussed at ¶ 7, 8, 9, 10, 11
Where a claim was not made in the return or by a revised return within time, it cannot be raised by invoking Section 264, which would be an attempt to revise the return under the garb of a revision.
Goetze (India) Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income-Tax (2006) 284 ITR 323 : (2006) SCC Online SC 1446
Followed Discussed at ¶ 10, 11
The Tribunal may entertain a new point of law under Section 254 only where the facts on which it rests were before it; the Assessing Officer cannot entertain a claim otherwise than as the Act provides.
Shriram Investments v. Commissioner of Income-Tax (2024) 468 ITR 372 : (2024) SCC Online SC 2699
Relied Upon Discussed at ¶ 12
Explained and distinguished Wipro Finance: it concerned the Tribunal's appellate power under Section 254, not the Assessing Officer's power to consider a claim after a revised return was time-barred.

View all precedents (6)

Wipro Finance Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income Tax (2022) 443 ITR 250 : 2022 SCC Online SC 675
Distinguished Discussed at ¶ 6, 9, 12
Relied on by the assessee for raising a fresh claim; distinguished because it did not concern the effect of not filing a revised return in time.
Dwarka Nath v. Income Tax Officer (1965) 57 ITR 349 : 1965 SCC Online SC 61
Distinguished Discussed at ¶ 6, 9
Its explanation of the scope of revisional jurisdiction does not enlarge an assessee's right to raise a fresh claim without filing a revised return.
Sirpur Paper Mills Ltd. v. Commissioner of Wealth Tax (1970) 1 SCC 795
Distinguished Discussed at ¶ 6, 9
Relied on by the assessee; distinguished because it did not concern the effect of not filing a revised return in time.

No Revised Return, No Fresh Claim in Section 264 Revision: Supreme Court Dismisses Orissa Rural Housing Corporation's Appeals

Judgment Intelligence

Key holdings

Brief Facts

Court's Findings

Legal Principle

Precedents Relied Upon

Related Judgments

Rajasthan Exam Unfair-Means Case: Supreme Court Grants Bail After 30 Months, 150 Accused and 180 Witnesses Pending

Supreme Court Sets Aside Order on Insurer's Plea Passed Without Notice to Accident Claimants

204 kg Ganja: Supreme Court Suspends Truck Driver's 12-Year NDPS Sentence After Over Four Years in Custody