Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Mumbai
Mtitanium Apartments Pvt Ltd,Mumbai vs Dy. Cit Circle 1(2)(1), Mumbai on 9 September, 2025
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., Dy. CIT-Circle 1(2)(1),
2nd Floor, Shreeniwas House, Range 412, Aayakar Bhawan,
Hazarimal Somani Marg, Fort, Vs. M.K. Road, Churchgate,
Mumbai-400 001. Mumbai-400020.
PAN NO. AAFCM 6810 Q
Appellant Respondent
Assessee by : Mr. Narayn Atal
Revenue by : Ms. Kavitha Kaushik, Sr. DR
Date of He aring : 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 Mtitanium Apartments Pvt. Ltd 2 ITA No. 4694/MUM/2025 of the Return of Income of previous year of which which set-off set of 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 Α.Υ.2023 24 was 31.10.2023 and return of of income for Α.Υ.2023-24 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 days of October 2023. As soon as the said person in last days recovered and resumed the office, she immediately filed
24..
the aforesaid Return of Income for A.Υ.2023-24.
2. 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 2024-25 25 on 22.10.2024 declaring total income of ₹1,85,60,980/-.. The said return was processed by CPC, Bengaluru processed under section 143(1) of the Act, whereby the assessee's claim of set-
set off of brought forward business loss of ₹1,10,28,515/ 1,10,28,515/- pertaining to the assessment year 2023 24 was disallowed, on the ground that 2023-24 the return for the preceding year had been furnished belatedly on 10.11.2023, beyond the due date prescribed under section 139(1).
2.1 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 record. The Ld. CIT(A), however, rejected this have been placed on record.
Mtitanium Apartments Pvt. Ltd 3 ITA No. 4694/MUM/2025 plea by relying on the binding pronouncement of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in 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 Act--namely, time prescribed under section 139(1) to entitle the assessee to carry is mandatory and not directory. The relevant forward such loss--is finding of the Ld. d. CIT(A) is reproduced as under:
"7. Decision::- The appellant has filed the Rol for AY-2024 2024-25 on 22-10-2024 2024 admitting a total income of Rs. 1,85,60,980, after off of brought forward loss of Rs.1,10,2,515. The claiming set-off case was processed U/s. 143(1) and 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 Set off of business loss is claimed the previous year of which Set-off 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.
domestic private limited company and it has "The appellant is a domestic filed its Return of Income for said Asst. Year. 2024-25 2024 on 22.10.2024 vide Acknowledgement No. 628094621221024, declaring Total Income at Rs. 1,85,60,980 & Net Tax Liability at been processed by CPC-ITD, Rs.51,63,664. The said return has been 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 CPC-ITD 1961, disallowing 25.03.2025, u/s. 143(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, the set-off off of brought forward business losses of Rs. 1, 10,28,515 Mtitanium Apartments Pvt. Ltd 4 ITA No. 4694/MUM/2025 claimed of A. Y.2023 Y.2023-24, 24, on account of the return of previous year of which set--off off of business losses is claimed was furnished beyond the due date specified u/s. 139(1) of the t Act.
The due date for filing return of income for A.Y.2023-24 A.Y.2023 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 Vaishnavi 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 soonsoon as the said person recovered and resumed the office, she immediately filed the aforesaid Return of Income for A. Y. 2023-24.2023
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 Subsequently, she was on was there about 2 days in hospital. Subsequently, 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 and discharge card, post-surgery surgery diagnostic reports etc. Your appellant submits that the disallowance made of set set-off of 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 Set off of brought present case, the appellant has claimed Set-off forward loss of Rs. 1,10,28,515 pertaining to AY 2023 2023-24 in the 2024 25. However, the Rol for AY 2023-24, Rol filed for AY 2024-25. 2023 claimingg the Loss of Rs. 1,10,28,515 was filed on 10-11-2023 10 beyond the due date for filling Rol U/s.139(1) i.e., 31-10-2023.
31Hence, 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 5 ITA No. 4694/MUM/2025 Notwithstanding tanding anything contained in this Chapter, no loss which has not been determined in pursuance of a return filed in sub section (3) of section 139, accordance with the provisions of sub-section shall be carried forward and set off under sub sub-section section (1) of section 72 orr sub-section sub (2) of section 73 or sub-section section (2) of section 73A or sub-section sub section (3) of section 74 or (1) or sub-section sub-section 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 year 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- sub section (1) of section 72, or sub-section sub section (2) of (2) of section 73, or sub-section section 73A or sub section (3) of section 74, or sub-section (1) or sub-section section (3) of section 74A, he may furnish, within the time sub-section allowed under sub-section sub section (1), a return of loss in the prescribed form and verified in the prescribed manner and containing 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)".
sub-section 7.4. Therefore, it is clearly evident that, in order to claim set set-off of carry-forward 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 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 in-order adjustment of Set Set-off of brought forward losses. 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 set of 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 ben efit of carrying forward or set-off benefit set of any loss under section 80."
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 Court of the 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 (Bombay) the Ld. CIT(A).
4. On the contrary, the Ld 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 and Act also does not apply in such circumstances.
5. 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 by taking a liberal view and reliance on decisions of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in Western 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 119(2)(b) 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 course open to the assessee was to invoke misplaced. The proper course the jurisdiction of the CBDT under section 119(2)(b) for condonation of delay, if so advised.
Mtitanium Apartments Pvt. Ltd 7 ITA No. 4694/MUM/2025 5.1 In the present case, there is no dispute that the return for assessment year 2023-24 2023 24 was filed belatedly by 10 days. The 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 forward and set-off assessee forfeits the right to claim carry forward set of such loss. The binding authority of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Wipro 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 te. As observed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Wipro Ltd. statute.
(supra), such a requirement is a condition precedent and not a mere procedural formality. Accordingly, the denial of set-off set by the CPC and its affirmation by the Ld. CIT(A) is in accordance with law.
l hold the order of ld CIT(A) on the issue in We accordingly uphold grounds of appeal of the assessee are accordingly dispute.. The ground dismissed.
Mtitanium Apartments Pvt. Ltd 8 ITA No. 4694/MUM/2025
6. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed.
Order pronounced in the open Court.
Sd/- Sd/-
Sd/
(SUCHITRA RAGHUNATH KAMBLE
KAMBLE) OM PRAKASH KANT)
(OM KANT
JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT 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.
BY ORDER,
//True Copy//
(Assistant Registrar)
ITAT, Mumbai