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

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 of the R busine date sp

Return of Income of previous year of whic ess losses is claimed was furnished beyo pecified u/s. 139(1) of the Act.
appellant submits that the due date for f ome for Α.Υ.2023-24 was 31.10.2023 an e was filed on 10.11.2023, i.e. the said e was filed belatedly by 10 days, due to al issues suffered by the person who files ome of the Assessee Company and the s nderwent through medical procedures a days of October 2023. As soon as the s red and resumed the office, she immed oresaid Return of Income for A.Υ.2023-24
ully considered the rival submis arties and perused the materi matrix is not in dispute. T ited company, filed its return of 24-25 on 22.10.2024 declaring said return was processed by C of the Act, whereby the assesse d business loss of ₹1,10,28,515
r 2023-24 was disallowed, on t receding year had been furnish the due date prescribed under s
T(A), the assessee’s explanation medical exigency suffered by responsible for filing the ret dencing hospitalization and sur n record. The Ld. CIT(A), howev um Apartments Pvt. Ltd
2
A No. 4694/MUM/2025
ch set-off of ond the due filing return nd return of d return of unforeseen s the Return said person and surgery said person diately filed
4..
ssions advanced ial available on The assessee, a f income for the total income of CPC, Bengaluru ee’s claim of set-
5/- pertaining to the ground that hed belatedly on section 139(1).
n for the delay of Ms. Vaishnavi turn of income.
rgical procedure ver, rejected this plea by relying on Supreme Court in W
(SC), wherein it has b the requirement und
Act—namely, that a time prescribed unde forward such loss—i finding of the Ld. CIT
“7. Decision
22-10-2024 a claiming set-o case was pr determined adjustment of the previous was furnishe details given
7.1. Aggrieved the present a following sub "The appellan filed its Retu
22.10.2024
declaring Tota
Rs.51,63,664
determining T at Rs.82,31,7
Rs.31,35,750
25.03.2025, u the set-off of b
Mtitaniu
ITA the binding pronouncement
Wipro Ltd. v. DCIT [2022] 140 tax been held in clear and unambigu der section 139(3) read with se return of loss must be furnis er section 139(1) to entitle the a is mandatory and not director
T(A) is reproduced as under:
:- The appellant has filed the Rol for AY-2
admitting a total income of Rs. 1,85,60
off of brought forward loss of Rs.1,10, rocessed U/s. 143(1) and the total in as Rs.2,95,89,490, by denying the f brought forward losses, on account of th year of which Set-off of business loss ed beyond the due date specified U/s.
as per the intimation U/s. 143(1) is given d against the said order, the appellant ha appeal. In this regard, the appellant has missions.
nt is a domestic private limited company urn of Income for said Asst. Year. 2
vide Acknowledgement No. 6280946
al Income at Rs. 1,85,60,980 & Net Tax
4. The said return has been processed b
Total Income at Rs.2,95,89,490 & Net T
797, thereby determining tax demand
0. The CPC-ITD has passed Intimation O u/s. 143(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, brought forward business losses of Rs. 1, um Apartments Pvt. Ltd
3
A No. 4694/MUM/2025
of the Hon’ble xmann.com 223
uous terms that ection 80 of the shed within the assessee to carry ry. The relevant
2024-25 on 0,980, after
2,515. The ncome was claim of he return of is claimed
139(1). The n as under, as preferred s made the and it has 2024-25 on 621221024,
Liability at by CPC-ITD,
Tax Liability payable at Order dated disallowing
, 10,28,515

claimed of A.
of which set- beyond the du
The due date
31.10.2023 a the said retur unforeseen m
Vaishnavi Gu
Company and immediate m
October 2023
Kidney stone resumed the o
Income for A.
The said pers underwent su kidney sto supervision/i
Oncologist) i
02.11.2023. S was there ab bed rest for a one week.
Your appella prescriptions, surgical proc card, post-sur
Your appellan brought forwa the facts and justice".
7.2. The sub present case forward loss
Rol filed for claiming the beyond the d
Hence, the s regard, the r under,
Mtitaniu
ITA

Y.2023-24, on account of the return of pr
-off of business losses is claimed was ue date specified u/s. 139(1) of the Act.
e for filing return of income for A.Y.20
and return of income was filed on 10.1
rn of income was filed belatedly by 10 d medical issues suffered by the pe uduri) who files the Return of Income of th d the said person underwent through medical procedures and surgery in las
3 due to severe and unbearable pain on es. As soon as the said person reco office, she immediately filed the aforesai
Y. 2023-24. rson was diagnosed with Kidney Stones urgical procedure named cystoscopy i.e.
ones via laser operation, un nstructions of Dr.
Hitesh
Jain
(U in Shushrusha
Hospital,
Dadar,
M
She was admitted to said hospital for s bout 2 days in hospital. Subsequently, s about a weeks' time and resumed office ant submits herewith the copies o diagnostic reports, hospital bills, medic cedure papers, hospital admission and rgery diagnostic reports etc.
nt submits that the disallowance made o ard business losses ought to be allowed, d circumstances of the case and principle bmissions of the appellant are conside e, the appellant has claimed Set-off of Rs. 1,10,28,515 pertaining to AY 202
AY 2024-25. However, the Rol for AY
Loss of Rs. 1,10,28,515 was filed on due date for filling Rol U/s.139(1) i.e., 3
ame was not allowed by CPC U/s.143
relevant provisions of Section 80 is repr um Apartments Pvt. Ltd
4
A No. 4694/MUM/2025
revious year s furnished
023-24 was 1.2023, i.e.
days, due to rson (Mrs.
he Assessee urgent and st days of n account of overed and id Return of s, later she removal of nder the Urologist
&
Mumbai on surgery and she was on e only after of medical cal invoices, d discharge of set-off of considering e of natural red. In the of brought
23-24 in the Y 2023-24,
10-11-2023
31-10-2023. 3(1). In this roduced as Notwithstand which has no accordance w shall be carr section 72 or section 73A o sub-section (3
7.3. As per pr
"(3) If any per under the he under the hea part thereof s section 72, or section 73A o sub-section (3
allowed unde form and veri other particul this Act shall 7.4. Therefore carry-forward loss was ar
U/s.139(1). H belatedly with has stated entrusted wit
Since, as per
Rol within th adjustment of reliance is pla case of Wipro court has hel carry forward court has hel section 139(5
section 139(1)
139(3), in ord any loss unde
3. Before us, the L that the Ld. CIT(A) ha income. He relied on Mtitaniu
ITA ding anything contained in this Chapte ot been determined in pursuance of a ret with the provisions of sub-section (3) of s ried forward and set off under sub-se r sub-section (2) of section 73 or sub-se or sub-section (1) or sub-section (3) of se
3) of section 74A.
rovisions of Section 139(3) rson who has sustained a loss in any pre ad "Profits and gains of business or pro ad "Capital gains" and claims that the l should be carried forward under sub- se r sub-section (2) of section 73, or sub-se or sub-section (1) or sub-section (3) of sec
3) of section 74A, he may furnish, with er sub-section (1), a return of loss in the ified in the prescribed manner and conta lars as may be prescribed, and all the p apply as if it were a return under sub-sec e, it is clearly evident that, in order to clai d losses, the Rol for the previous year in rrived has to be filed within the tim
However, in the present case, the appella h a delay of 10 days. In this regard, th certain medical reasons of the perso th filling Rol. However, the same is not the provisions of the Act, it is mandatory he due date as per the Act in-order to f Set-off of brought forward losses. In t aced on the decision of Hon'ble Supreme C
Ltd. reported in 140 taxmann.com 223, w ld that, "the time limit to file Rol to claim d is mandatory and not directory". Accor ld that, the revised return filed by asse
5) can only substitute its original return f
) and cannot transform it into a return un der to avail benefit of carrying forward o er section 80.”
Ld. counsel for the assessee how as not condoned the delay in fili n the decision of the Hon’ble Hi um Apartments Pvt. Ltd
5
A No. 4694/MUM/2025
er, no loss turn filed in section 139, ction (1) of ection (2) of ection 74 or evious year ofession" or loss or any ection (1) of ection (2) of ction 74, or hin the time e prescribed aining such rovisions of ction (1)".
im set-off of n which the me allowed nt has filed he appellant on who is acceptable.
ry to file the claim, the this regard,
Court in the wherein the m set-off of rdingly, the essee under filed under nder section or set-off of wever submitted ing the return of igh Court of the Bombay in the case o
(2025) 177 taxmann.
ADCC Infocom (P.) L
(Bombay) the Ld. CIT
4. On the contrar relied on the order o provision for condon set off of carry for provision of the Act
Act also does not app
5. We have heard the relevant materia that the delay shou reliance on decisions
Arch Developers v. PC
(supra) does not adv the context of sectio
Central Board of D appropriate cases. T authorities such as t misplaced. The prop the juri iction of the of delay, if so advised
Mtitaniu
ITA of Western Arch Developers v. P
.com 313 (Bombay) and decisio
Ltd. v. Pr. CIT [2023] 150 tax
T(A).
ry, the Ld. Departmental Repr f the Ld. CIT(A) and submitted ing the delay in filing the retur rward losses has been provi and therefore, the provisions o ply in such circumstances.
rival submissions of the parti als on record. The contention ld be condoned by taking a li s of the Hon’ble Bombay High C
CIT supra) and ADCC Infocom (P ance its case. Both decisions w on 119(2)(b) of the Act, which Direct Taxes (CBDT) to con
The said power is not vested i he CIT(A) or this Tribunal. Thus er course open to the assessee e CBDT under section 119(2)(b) d.
um Apartments Pvt. Ltd
6
A No. 4694/MUM/2025
PCIT reported in on in the case of xmann.com 529
resentative (DR) that no specific rn of income for ded under the of the Limitation ies and perused of the assessee iberal view and Court in Western
P.) Ltd. v. Pr. CIT were rendered in h empowers the ndone delay in in the appellate s, the reliance is e was to invoke for condonation

Mtitaniu
ITA case, there is no dispute that 023-24 was filed belatedly by of section 80 read with section mits of no exception. As long a n the time prescribed under sec right to claim carry forward and thority of the Hon’ble Supreme ly governs the field and leave ons to override the statutory ma mindful of the medical exigency doubtedly deserves sympathy.
interpreted strictly, and neit ground to ignore the express c by the Hon’ble Supreme Court uirement is a condition preced mality. Accordingly, the denial o ion by the Ld. CIT(A) is in accor hold the order of ld CIT(A) o ds of appeal of the assessee um Apartments Pvt. Ltd
7
A No. 4694/MUM/2025
t the return for y 10 days. The 139(3) is clear, as the return of ction 139(1), the d set-off of such Court in Wipro es no scope for andate.
y pleaded by the However, fiscal ther equity nor command of the t in Wipro Ltd.
dent and not a of set-off by the rdance with law.
n the issue in are accordingly

Copy of the Order forward
1. The Appellant
2. The Respondent.
3. CIT
4. DR, ITAT, Mumbai
5. Guard file.

////

Mtitaniu
ITA he appeal of the assessee is dism ced in the open Court. UNATH KAMBLE)
(OM PRAK
MEMBER
ACCOUNTA ded to :

BY ORDER

(Assistant Re

ITAT, Mu um Apartments Pvt. Ltd
8
A No. 4694/MUM/2025
missed.
d/-
KASH KANT)
ANT MEMBER
R, gistrar) umbai