MTITANIUM APARTMENTS PVT LTD,MUMBAI V. DY. CIT CIRCLE 1(2)(1), MUMBAI

ITA 4694/MUM/2025

AI Insights

Mtitanium Apartments Pvt. Ltd. appealed against the order of the CIT(A) which upheld the disallowance of set-off of brought forward business losses amounting to Rs.1,10,28,515 for the assessment year 2023-24. The disallowance was initially made by the CPC due to the late filing of the income tax return, which was submitted 10 days past the due date. The assessee argued that the delay was due to medical emergencies faced by the person responsible for filing the return. However, both the CIT(A) and the Tribunal rejected this plea, citing the mandatory nature of the filing deadline under section 139(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 774675 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 month(s) 16 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 09-09-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: F
• Assessment Year: 2024-2025
• Appeal Filed On: 24-07-2025
• Other Referred Cases: Wipro Ltd. v. DCIT [2022] 140 taxmann.com 223 (SC)
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: KAVITHA KAUSHIK
• Assessee Lawyers: NARAYN ATAL
• Keywords: Revised return; Capital Gains; Principle of natural justice
• Section: 119(2)(b); 139(5)

Judgement Text

"IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “F” MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) AND MS. SUCHITRA RAGHUNATH KAMBLE (JUDICIAL MEMBER) ITA No. 4694/MUM/2025 Assessment Year: 2024-2025 Mtitanium Apartments Pvt. Ltd., 2nd Floor, Shreeniwas House, Hazarimal Somani Marg, Fort, Mumbai-400 001. Vs. Dy. CIT-Circle 1(2)(1), Range 412, Aayakar Bhawan, M.K. Road, Churchgate, Mumbai-400020. PAN NO. AAFCM 6810 Q Appellant Respondent Assessee by : Mr. Narayn Atal Revenue by : Ms. Kavitha Kaushik, Sr. DR Date of Hearing : 09/09/2025 Date of pronouncement : 09/09/2025 ORDER PER OM PRAKASH KANT, AM This appeal by the assessee is directed against order dated 29.05.2025 passed by the Ld. Additional/Joint Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) – 3, Chennai [in short ‘the Ld. CIT(A)’] for assessment year 2024-2025, raising following grounds: 1. The Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) 3, Chennai [hereinafter referred to as the CIT(A)) erred in upholding the disallowance made by CPC-ITD i.e. Centralized Processing Centre, Income tax Department, in respect of the set- off of brought forward business losses of Rs.1,10,28,515/- claimed of A.Y.2023- 24, on account Printed from counselvise.com of the Return of Income of previous year of whi business losses is claimed was furnished beyond the due date specified u/s. 139(1) of the Act. 2. Your appellant submits that the due date for filing return of income for Α.Υ.2023 income was filed on 10.11.2023, income was filed belatedly by 10 days, due to unforeseen medical issues suffered by the person who files the Return of Income of the Assessee Company and the said person has underwent through medical procedures and surgery in last d recovered and resumed the office, she immediately filed the aforesaid Return of Income for 2. We have carefully considered the rival submissions advanced on behalf of the parties and perused the record. The factual matrix is not in dispute. The assessee, a domestic private limited company, filed its return of income for the assessment year 2024 ₹1,85,60,980/-. The said return was pr under section 143(1) of the Act, whereby the assessee’s claim of set off of brought forward business loss of the assessment year 2023 the return for the preceding 10.11.2023, beyond the due date prescribed under section 139(1). 2.1 Before the Ld. CIT(A), 10 days rests on medical exigency suffered by Ms. Vaishnavi Guduri, the person responsible for filing the return of income. Medical records evidencing hospitalization and surgical procedure have been placed on re Mtitanium Apartments Pvt. Ltd ITA No. 4694/MUM/2025 of the Return of Income of previous year of which set business losses is claimed was furnished beyond the due date specified u/s. 139(1) of the Act. Your appellant submits that the due date for filing return of income for Α.Υ.2023-24 was 31.10.2023 and return of income was filed on 10.11.2023, i.e. the said return of income was filed belatedly by 10 days, due to unforeseen medical issues suffered by the person who files the Return of Income of the Assessee Company and the said person has underwent through medical procedures and surgery in last days of October 2023. As soon as the said person recovered and resumed the office, she immediately filed the aforesaid Return of Income for A.Υ.2023-24. We have carefully considered the rival submissions advanced on behalf of the parties and perused the material available on record. The factual matrix is not in dispute. The assessee, a domestic private limited company, filed its return of income for the assessment year 2024-25 on 22.10.2024 declaring total income of . The said return was processed by CPC, Bengaluru under section 143(1) of the Act, whereby the assessee’s claim of set off of brought forward business loss of ₹1,10,28,515/ the assessment year 2023-24 was disallowed, on the ground that the return for the preceding year had been furnished belatedly on 10.11.2023, beyond the due date prescribed under section 139(1). Before the Ld. CIT(A), the assessee’s explanation for the delay of 10 days rests on medical exigency suffered by Ms. Vaishnavi Guduri, the person responsible for filing the return of income. Medical records evidencing hospitalization and surgical procedure have been placed on record. The Ld. CIT(A), however, rejected this Mtitanium Apartments Pvt. Ltd 2 ITA No. 4694/MUM/2025 ch set-off of business losses is claimed was furnished beyond the due Your appellant submits that the due date for filing return 24 was 31.10.2023 and return of i.e. the said return of income was filed belatedly by 10 days, due to unforeseen medical issues suffered by the person who files the Return of Income of the Assessee Company and the said person has underwent through medical procedures and surgery ays of October 2023. As soon as the said person recovered and resumed the office, she immediately filed 24.. We have carefully considered the rival submissions advanced material available on record. The factual matrix is not in dispute. The assessee, a domestic private limited company, filed its return of income for the 25 on 22.10.2024 declaring total income of ocessed by CPC, Bengaluru under section 143(1) of the Act, whereby the assessee’s claim of set- 1,10,28,515/- pertaining to 24 was disallowed, on the ground that year had been furnished belatedly on 10.11.2023, beyond the due date prescribed under section 139(1). the assessee’s explanation for the delay of 10 days rests on medical exigency suffered by Ms. Vaishnavi Guduri, the person responsible for filing the return of income. Medical records evidencing hospitalization and surgical procedure cord. The Ld. CIT(A), however, rejected this Printed from counselvise.com plea by relying on the binding pronouncement of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Wipro Ltd. v. DCIT (SC), wherein it has been held in clear and unambiguous terms that the requirement under Act—namely, that a return of loss must be furnished within the time prescribed under section 139(1) to entitle the assessee to carry forward such loss—is finding of the Ld. CIT(A) is reproduced as under: “7. Decision: 22-10-2024 admitting a total income of Rs. 1,85,60,980, after claiming set-off of brought forward loss of Rs.1,10,2,515. The case was processed U/s. 143(1) a determined as Rs.2,95,89,490, by denying the claim of adjustment of brought forward losses, on account of the return of the previous year of which Set was furnished beyond the due date specified U/s. details given as per the intimation U/s. 143(1) is given as under, 7.1. Aggrieved against the said order, the appellant has preferred the present appeal. In this regard, the appellant has made the following submissions. \"The appellant is a do filed its Return of Income for said Asst. Year. 2024 22.10.2024 vide Acknowledgement No. 628094621221024, declaring Total Income at Rs. 1,85,60,980 & Net Tax Liability at Rs.51,63,664. The said return has bee determining Total Income at Rs.2,95,89,490 & Net Tax Liability at Rs.82,31,797, thereby determining tax demand payable at Rs.31,35,750. The CPC 25.03.2025, u/s. 143(1) of the Income Tax Act, 196 the set-off of brought forward business losses of Rs. 1, 10,28,515 Mtitanium Apartments Pvt. Ltd ITA No. 4694/MUM/2025 plea by relying on the binding pronouncement of the Hon’ble Wipro Ltd. v. DCIT [2022] 140 taxmann.com 223 (SC), wherein it has been held in clear and unambiguous terms that the requirement under section 139(3) read with section 80 of the namely, that a return of loss must be furnished within the time prescribed under section 139(1) to entitle the assessee to carry is mandatory and not directory. d. CIT(A) is reproduced as under: :- The appellant has filed the Rol for AY-2024 2024 admitting a total income of Rs. 1,85,60,980, after off of brought forward loss of Rs.1,10,2,515. The case was processed U/s. 143(1) and the total income was determined as Rs.2,95,89,490, by denying the claim of adjustment of brought forward losses, on account of the return of the previous year of which Set-off of business loss is claimed was furnished beyond the due date specified U/s. 139(1). The details given as per the intimation U/s. 143(1) is given as under, 7.1. Aggrieved against the said order, the appellant has preferred the present appeal. In this regard, the appellant has made the following submissions. \"The appellant is a domestic private limited company and it has filed its Return of Income for said Asst. Year. 2024 22.10.2024 vide Acknowledgement No. 628094621221024, declaring Total Income at Rs. 1,85,60,980 & Net Tax Liability at Rs.51,63,664. The said return has been processed by CPC determining Total Income at Rs.2,95,89,490 & Net Tax Liability at Rs.82,31,797, thereby determining tax demand payable at Rs.31,35,750. The CPC-ITD has passed Intimation Order dated 25.03.2025, u/s. 143(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, disallowing off of brought forward business losses of Rs. 1, 10,28,515 Mtitanium Apartments Pvt. Ltd 3 ITA No. 4694/MUM/2025 plea by relying on the binding pronouncement of the Hon’ble [2022] 140 taxmann.com 223 (SC), wherein it has been held in clear and unambiguous terms that section 139(3) read with section 80 of the namely, that a return of loss must be furnished within the time prescribed under section 139(1) to entitle the assessee to carry and not directory. The relevant 2024-25 on 2024 admitting a total income of Rs. 1,85,60,980, after off of brought forward loss of Rs.1,10,2,515. The nd the total income was determined as Rs.2,95,89,490, by denying the claim of adjustment of brought forward losses, on account of the return of off of business loss is claimed 139(1). The details given as per the intimation U/s. 143(1) is given as under, 7.1. Aggrieved against the said order, the appellant has preferred the present appeal. In this regard, the appellant has made the mestic private limited company and it has filed its Return of Income for said Asst. Year. 2024-25 on 22.10.2024 vide Acknowledgement No. 628094621221024, declaring Total Income at Rs. 1,85,60,980 & Net Tax Liability at n processed by CPC-ITD, determining Total Income at Rs.2,95,89,490 & Net Tax Liability at Rs.82,31,797, thereby determining tax demand payable at ITD has passed Intimation Order dated 1, disallowing off of brought forward business losses of Rs. 1, 10,28,515 Printed from counselvise.com claimed of A. Y.2023 of which set- beyond the due date specified u/s. 139(1) of t The due date for filing return of income for A.Y.2023 31.10.2023 and return of income was filed on 10.11.2023, i.e. the said return of income was filed belatedly by 10 days, due to unforeseen medical issues suffered by the person (Mrs. Vaishnavi Guduri) who files the Return of Income of the Assessee Company and the said person underwent through urgent and immediate medical procedures and surgery in last days of October 2023 due to severe and unbearable pain on account of Kidney stones. As soo resumed the office, she immediately filed the aforesaid Return of Income for A. Y. 2023 The said person was diagnosed with Kidney Stones, later she underwent surgical procedure named cystoscopy i.e. removal of kidney stones via laser operation, under the supervision/instructions of Dr. Hitesh Jain (Urologist & Oncologist) in Shushrusha Hospital, Dadar, Mumbai on 02.11.2023. She was admitted to said hospital for surgery and was there about 2 days in hospital. Subsequent bed rest for about a weeks' time and resumed office only after one week. Your appellant submits herewith the copies of medical prescriptions, diagnostic reports, hospital bills, medical invoices, surgical procedure papers, hospital admission card, post-surgery diagnostic reports etc. Your appellant submits that the disallowance made of set brought forward business losses ought to be allowed, considering the facts and circumstances of the case and principle of natural justice\". 7.2. The submissions of the appellant are considered. In the present case, the appellant has claimed Set forward loss of Rs. 1,10,28,515 pertaining to AY 2023 Rol filed for AY 2024 claiming the Loss of Rs. 1,10,28,515 was filed on 10 beyond the due date for filling Rol U/s.139(1) i.e., 31 Hence, the same was not allowed by CPC U/s.143(1). In this regard, the relevant provisions of Section 80 is reproduced as under, Mtitanium Apartments Pvt. Ltd ITA No. 4694/MUM/2025 claimed of A. Y.2023-24, on account of the return of previous year -off of business losses is claimed was furnished beyond the due date specified u/s. 139(1) of the Act. The due date for filing return of income for A.Y.2023 31.10.2023 and return of income was filed on 10.11.2023, i.e. the said return of income was filed belatedly by 10 days, due to unforeseen medical issues suffered by the person (Mrs. navi Guduri) who files the Return of Income of the Assessee Company and the said person underwent through urgent and immediate medical procedures and surgery in last days of October 2023 due to severe and unbearable pain on account of Kidney stones. As soon as the said person recovered and resumed the office, she immediately filed the aforesaid Return of Income for A. Y. 2023-24. The said person was diagnosed with Kidney Stones, later she underwent surgical procedure named cystoscopy i.e. removal of stones via laser operation, under the supervision/instructions of Dr. Hitesh Jain (Urologist & Oncologist) in Shushrusha Hospital, Dadar, Mumbai on 02.11.2023. She was admitted to said hospital for surgery and was there about 2 days in hospital. Subsequently, she was on bed rest for about a weeks' time and resumed office only after Your appellant submits herewith the copies of medical prescriptions, diagnostic reports, hospital bills, medical invoices, surgical procedure papers, hospital admission and discharge surgery diagnostic reports etc. Your appellant submits that the disallowance made of set brought forward business losses ought to be allowed, considering the facts and circumstances of the case and principle of natural 7.2. The submissions of the appellant are considered. In the present case, the appellant has claimed Set-off of brought forward loss of Rs. 1,10,28,515 pertaining to AY 2023 Rol filed for AY 2024-25. However, the Rol for AY 2023 g the Loss of Rs. 1,10,28,515 was filed on 10 beyond the due date for filling Rol U/s.139(1) i.e., 31 Hence, the same was not allowed by CPC U/s.143(1). In this regard, the relevant provisions of Section 80 is reproduced as Mtitanium Apartments Pvt. Ltd 4 ITA No. 4694/MUM/2025 24, on account of the return of previous year off of business losses is claimed was furnished The due date for filing return of income for A.Y.2023-24 was 31.10.2023 and return of income was filed on 10.11.2023, i.e. the said return of income was filed belatedly by 10 days, due to unforeseen medical issues suffered by the person (Mrs. navi Guduri) who files the Return of Income of the Assessee Company and the said person underwent through urgent and immediate medical procedures and surgery in last days of October 2023 due to severe and unbearable pain on account of n as the said person recovered and resumed the office, she immediately filed the aforesaid Return of The said person was diagnosed with Kidney Stones, later she underwent surgical procedure named cystoscopy i.e. removal of stones via laser operation, under the supervision/instructions of Dr. Hitesh Jain (Urologist & Oncologist) in Shushrusha Hospital, Dadar, Mumbai on 02.11.2023. She was admitted to said hospital for surgery and ly, she was on bed rest for about a weeks' time and resumed office only after Your appellant submits herewith the copies of medical prescriptions, diagnostic reports, hospital bills, medical invoices, and discharge Your appellant submits that the disallowance made of set-off of brought forward business losses ought to be allowed, considering the facts and circumstances of the case and principle of natural 7.2. The submissions of the appellant are considered. In the off of brought forward loss of Rs. 1,10,28,515 pertaining to AY 2023-24 in the 25. However, the Rol for AY 2023-24, g the Loss of Rs. 1,10,28,515 was filed on 10-11-2023 beyond the due date for filling Rol U/s.139(1) i.e., 31-10-2023. Hence, the same was not allowed by CPC U/s.143(1). In this regard, the relevant provisions of Section 80 is reproduced as Printed from counselvise.com Notwithstanding anything contained in this Chapter, no loss which has not been determined in pursuance of a return filed in accordance with the provisions of sub shall be carried forward and set off under sub section 72 or sub section 73A or sub sub-section (3) of section 74A. 7.3. As per provisions of Section 139(3) \"(3) If any person who has sustained a loss in any previous ye under the head \"Profits and gains of business or profession\" or under the head \"Capital gains\" and claims that the loss or any part thereof should be carried forward under sub section 72, or sub section 73A or sub sub-section (3) of section 74A, he may furnish, within the time allowed under sub form and verified in the prescribed manner and cont other particulars as may be prescribed, and all the provisions of this Act shall apply as if it were a return under sub 7.4. Therefore, it is clearly evident that, in order to claim set carry-forward losses, the Rol for the loss was arrived has to be filed within the time allowed U/s.139(1). However, in the present case, the appellant has filed belatedly with a delay of 10 days. In this regard, the appellant has stated certain medical reasons of th entrusted with filling Rol. However, the same is not acceptable. Since, as per the provisions of the Act, it is mandatory to file the Rol within the due date as per the Act in adjustment of Set reliance is placed on the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Wipro Ltd. reported in 140 taxmann.com 223, wherein the court has held that, \"the time limit to file Rol to claim set carry forward is mandatory and not court has held that, the revised return filed by assessee under section 139(5) can only substitute its original return filed under section 139(1) and cannot transform it into a return under section 139(3), in order to avail ben any loss under 3. Before us, the Ld. counsel for the assessee however submitted that the Ld. CIT(A) has not condoned the delay in filing the return of income. He relied on the decision of the Hon’ble High Mtitanium Apartments Pvt. Ltd ITA No. 4694/MUM/2025 tanding anything contained in this Chapter, no loss which has not been determined in pursuance of a return filed in accordance with the provisions of sub-section (3) of section 139, shall be carried forward and set off under sub-section (1) of r sub-section (2) of section 73 or sub-section (2) of section 73A or sub-section (1) or sub-section (3) of section 74 or section (3) of section 74A. 7.3. As per provisions of Section 139(3) \"(3) If any person who has sustained a loss in any previous ye under the head \"Profits and gains of business or profession\" or under the head \"Capital gains\" and claims that the loss or any part thereof should be carried forward under sub- section (1) of section 72, or sub-section (2) of section 73, or sub-section section 73A or sub-section (1) or sub-section (3) of section 74, or section (3) of section 74A, he may furnish, within the time allowed under sub-section (1), a return of loss in the prescribed form and verified in the prescribed manner and containing such other particulars as may be prescribed, and all the provisions of this Act shall apply as if it were a return under sub-section (1)\". 7.4. Therefore, it is clearly evident that, in order to claim set forward losses, the Rol for the previous year in which the loss was arrived has to be filed within the time allowed U/s.139(1). However, in the present case, the appellant has filed belatedly with a delay of 10 days. In this regard, the appellant has stated certain medical reasons of the person who is entrusted with filling Rol. However, the same is not acceptable. Since, as per the provisions of the Act, it is mandatory to file the Rol within the due date as per the Act in-order to claim, the adjustment of Set-off of brought forward losses. In this regard, reliance is placed on the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Wipro Ltd. reported in 140 taxmann.com 223, wherein the court has held that, \"the time limit to file Rol to claim set carry forward is mandatory and not directory\". Accordingly, the court has held that, the revised return filed by assessee under section 139(5) can only substitute its original return filed under section 139(1) and cannot transform it into a return under section 139(3), in order to avail benefit of carrying forward or set any loss under section 80.” Before us, the Ld. counsel for the assessee however submitted that the Ld. CIT(A) has not condoned the delay in filing the return of income. He relied on the decision of the Hon’ble High Mtitanium Apartments Pvt. Ltd 5 ITA No. 4694/MUM/2025 tanding anything contained in this Chapter, no loss which has not been determined in pursuance of a return filed in section (3) of section 139, section (1) of section (2) of section (3) of section 74 or \"(3) If any person who has sustained a loss in any previous year under the head \"Profits and gains of business or profession\" or under the head \"Capital gains\" and claims that the loss or any section (1) of section (2) of section (3) of section 74, or section (3) of section 74A, he may furnish, within the time section (1), a return of loss in the prescribed aining such other particulars as may be prescribed, and all the provisions of section (1)\". 7.4. Therefore, it is clearly evident that, in order to claim set-off of previous year in which the loss was arrived has to be filed within the time allowed U/s.139(1). However, in the present case, the appellant has filed belatedly with a delay of 10 days. In this regard, the appellant e person who is entrusted with filling Rol. However, the same is not acceptable. Since, as per the provisions of the Act, it is mandatory to file the order to claim, the ses. In this regard, reliance is placed on the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Wipro Ltd. reported in 140 taxmann.com 223, wherein the court has held that, \"the time limit to file Rol to claim set-off of directory\". Accordingly, the court has held that, the revised return filed by assessee under section 139(5) can only substitute its original return filed under section 139(1) and cannot transform it into a return under section efit of carrying forward or set-off of Before us, the Ld. counsel for the assessee however submitted that the Ld. CIT(A) has not condoned the delay in filing the return of income. He relied on the decision of the Hon’ble High Court of the Printed from counselvise.com Bombay in the case of Western Arch Developers v. PCIT reported in (2025) 177 taxmann.com 313 (Bombay) and decision in the case of ADCC Infocom (P.) Ltd. v. Pr. CIT [2023] 150 taxmann.com 529 (Bombay) the Ld. CIT(A). 4. On the contrary, the Ld relied on the order of the Ld. CIT(A) and submitted that no specific provision for condoning the delay in filing the return of income for set off of carry forward losses has been provided under the provision of the Act an Act also does not apply in such circumstances. 5. We have heard rival submissions of the parties and perused the relevant materials on record. that the delay should be condoned b reliance on decisions of the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in Arch Developers v. PCIT (supra) does not advance its case. Both decisions were rendered in the context of section 119 Central Board of Direct Taxes (CBDT) to condone delay in appropriate cases. The said power is not vested in the appellate authorities such as the CIT(A) or this Tribunal. Thus, the reliance is misplaced. The proper cou the jurisdiction of the CBDT under section 119(2)(b) for condonation of delay, if so advised. Mtitanium Apartments Pvt. Ltd ITA No. 4694/MUM/2025 Bombay in the case of Western Arch Developers v. PCIT reported in (2025) 177 taxmann.com 313 (Bombay) and decision in the case of ADCC Infocom (P.) Ltd. v. Pr. CIT [2023] 150 taxmann.com 529 (Bombay) the Ld. CIT(A). On the contrary, the Ld. Departmental Representative (DR) relied on the order of the Ld. CIT(A) and submitted that no specific provision for condoning the delay in filing the return of income for set off of carry forward losses has been provided under the provision of the Act and therefore, the provisions of the Limitation Act also does not apply in such circumstances. We have heard rival submissions of the parties and perused the relevant materials on record. The contention of the assessee that the delay should be condoned by taking a liberal view and reliance on decisions of the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in Arch Developers v. PCIT supra) and ADCC Infocom (P.) Ltd. v. Pr. CIT (supra) does not advance its case. Both decisions were rendered in the context of section 119(2)(b) of the Act, which empowers the Central Board of Direct Taxes (CBDT) to condone delay in appropriate cases. The said power is not vested in the appellate authorities such as the CIT(A) or this Tribunal. Thus, the reliance is misplaced. The proper course open to the assessee was to invoke the jurisdiction of the CBDT under section 119(2)(b) for condonation of delay, if so advised. Mtitanium Apartments Pvt. Ltd 6 ITA No. 4694/MUM/2025 Bombay in the case of Western Arch Developers v. PCIT reported in (2025) 177 taxmann.com 313 (Bombay) and decision in the case of ADCC Infocom (P.) Ltd. v. Pr. CIT [2023] 150 taxmann.com 529 . Departmental Representative (DR) relied on the order of the Ld. CIT(A) and submitted that no specific provision for condoning the delay in filing the return of income for set off of carry forward losses has been provided under the d therefore, the provisions of the Limitation We have heard rival submissions of the parties and perused The contention of the assessee y taking a liberal view and reliance on decisions of the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in Western ADCC Infocom (P.) Ltd. v. Pr. CIT (supra) does not advance its case. Both decisions were rendered in (2)(b) of the Act, which empowers the Central Board of Direct Taxes (CBDT) to condone delay in appropriate cases. The said power is not vested in the appellate authorities such as the CIT(A) or this Tribunal. Thus, the reliance is rse open to the assessee was to invoke the jurisdiction of the CBDT under section 119(2)(b) for condonation Printed from counselvise.com 5.1 In the present case, there is no dispute that the return for assessment year 2023 statutory language of section 80 read with section 139(3) is clear, categorical, and admits of no exception. As long as the return of loss is not filed within the time prescribed under section 139(1), the assessee forfeits the right to claim carry forwa loss. The binding authority of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Ltd. (supra) squarely governs the field and leaves no scope for equitable considerations to override the statutory mandate. 5.2. We are not unmindful of the medical exigency pleaded by the assessee, which undoubtedly deserves sympathy. However, fiscal statutes are to be interpreted strictly, and neither equity nor hardship can be a ground to ignore the express command of the statute. As observed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in (supra), such a requirement is a condition precedent and not a mere procedural formality. Accordingly, the denial of set CPC and its affirmation by the Ld. CIT(A) is in accordance with l We accordingly uphold the dispute. The ground dismissed. Mtitanium Apartments Pvt. Ltd ITA No. 4694/MUM/2025 In the present case, there is no dispute that the return for assessment year 2023-24 was filed belatedly by 10 days. T statutory language of section 80 read with section 139(3) is clear, categorical, and admits of no exception. As long as the return of loss is not filed within the time prescribed under section 139(1), the assessee forfeits the right to claim carry forward and set loss. The binding authority of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in (supra) squarely governs the field and leaves no scope for equitable considerations to override the statutory mandate. . We are not unmindful of the medical exigency pleaded by the assessee, which undoubtedly deserves sympathy. However, fiscal statutes are to be interpreted strictly, and neither equity nor hardship can be a ground to ignore the express command of the te. As observed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in (supra), such a requirement is a condition precedent and not a mere procedural formality. Accordingly, the denial of set CPC and its affirmation by the Ld. CIT(A) is in accordance with l hold the order of ld CIT(A) on the issue in . The grounds of appeal of the assessee Mtitanium Apartments Pvt. Ltd 7 ITA No. 4694/MUM/2025 In the present case, there is no dispute that the return for 24 was filed belatedly by 10 days. The statutory language of section 80 read with section 139(3) is clear, categorical, and admits of no exception. As long as the return of loss is not filed within the time prescribed under section 139(1), the rd and set-off of such loss. The binding authority of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Wipro (supra) squarely governs the field and leaves no scope for equitable considerations to override the statutory mandate. . We are not unmindful of the medical exigency pleaded by the assessee, which undoubtedly deserves sympathy. However, fiscal statutes are to be interpreted strictly, and neither equity nor hardship can be a ground to ignore the express command of the te. As observed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Wipro Ltd. (supra), such a requirement is a condition precedent and not a mere procedural formality. Accordingly, the denial of set-off by the CPC and its affirmation by the Ld. CIT(A) is in accordance with law. order of ld CIT(A) on the issue in of appeal of the assessee are accordingly Printed from counselvise.com 6. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed. Order pronounced in the open Court. Sd/- (SUCHITRA RAGHUNATH KAMBLE JUDICIAL MEMBER Mumbai; Dated: 09/09/2025 Rahul Sharma, Sr. P.S. Copy of the Order forwarded to 1. The Appellant 2. The Respondent. 3. CIT 4. DR, ITAT, Mumbai 5. Guard file. //True Copy// Mtitanium Apartments Pvt. Ltd ITA No. 4694/MUM/2025 In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed. Order pronounced in the open Court. Sd/ RAGHUNATH KAMBLE) (OM PRAKASH KANT JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Copy of the Order forwarded to : BY ORDER, (Assistant Registrar) ITAT, Mumbai Mtitanium Apartments Pvt. Ltd 8 ITA No. 4694/MUM/2025 In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed. Sd/- OM PRAKASH KANT) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER BY ORDER, (Assistant Registrar) ITAT, Mumbai Printed from counselvise.com "