PCIT vs. Wipro Limited (Supreme Court of India) In this instance, the assessee filed his original return in accordance with section 139(1) rather than section 139. (3). Because of this, the Revenue is correct to argue that the revised return submitted by the assessee under section 139(5) can only replace its original return under section 139(1) and cannot change it into a return under section 139(3) in order to take benefit of carrying forward or setting off any losses under section 80 of the IT Act.

In the event of an error or omission, the assessee may submit a revised return. However, it is not possible to file a revised income tax return in accordance with Section 139(5) in order to withdraw the claim and afterwards claim any losses that were carried forward or set off. It is not permitted to file a revised return under Section 139(5) of the IT Act and take a different stance or claim an exemption that was expressly not claimed before while filing the original return of income. The assessee is not allowed to replace the original return of income submitted in accordance with section 139(1) of the IT Act by filing the updated return of income.

The Assessee-Wipro Ltd. was entirely focused on exports and ran a call centre as well as IT Enabled and Remote Processing Services. According to section 10B of the IT Act, it submitted a return of income declaring a loss and claiming exemption. The assessee claimed that no loss was being carried forward because it was a unit wholly focused on exports and qualified for an exemption under Section 10B. However, the assessee thereafter submitted a new return of income requesting the carry forward of losses by not claiming Section 10B exemption.

The revised income tax return can only be filed under Section 139(5) to correct the arithmetical error, omission, and/or mistake, hence the Assessing Officer (AO) denied the claim of carrying forward of the loss. It cannot be submitted for a completely different claim. When the case reached to the High Court, the judge gave the relief to the assessee. Aggrieved by the order passed by High Court AO filed an appeal before the Supreme Court of India.

By the Supreme Court

According to the Supreme Court of India, the assessee submitted his original return under section 139(1) rather than section 139(3), or "return of loss," as was the case. As a result, AO was correct to argue that the revised return filed under section 139(5) can only replace the initial return filed under section 139(1) and cannot change it into a return filed under section 139. (3).

In the event of an error or omission, the assessee may submit a revised return. However, it is not possible to file a revised return of income in accordance with Section 139(5) in order to withdraw the claim and then later claim the carry forward or setoff of any loss. It is not permitted to file a revised return under Section 139(5) and take a different stance or claim an exemption that was expressly not claimed before while filing the original return of income. As a result, the High Court's contrary order was to be set aside, and the assesses claim was to be rejected.