ITAT Mumbai Rejects Carry Forward Loss Due to 10-Day Delay Despite Medical Hardship

Mtitanium Apartments Pvt. Ltd. Vs DCIT (ITAT Mumbai)

Tribunal rules that Mtitanium Apartments cannot claim ₹1.10 crore brought forward business losses as the income tax return for AY 2023-24 was filed late, despite medical hardship. ITAT Mumbai confirms that medical exigencies cannot override statutory deadlines under section 139(1) for claiming carry forward of business losses.

Facts

• Mtitanium Apartments Pvt. Ltd., a domestic private limited company, filed its return of income for AY 2023-24 belatedly by 10 days, on 10.11.2023, instead of the due date 31.10.2023.
• The delay was attributed to medical exigency faced by the responsible person, Ms. Vaishnavi Guduri, who underwent surgery and was on bed rest during the relevant period.
• The return claimed set-off of brought forward business losses of ₹1,10,28,515 but the CPC, Bengaluru, rejected this on the ground that the return for the previous year was not filed within the prescribed time under section 139(1).
• The appeal to the CIT(A) was unsuccessful; the disallowance was sustained.

Issues

• Whether Mtitanium Apartments Pvt. Ltd is entitled to set off brought forward business losses for AY 2023-24 when the return was filed 10 days late due to a medical emergency.
• Whether delay in filing the return could be condoned by taking a liberal view in light of the circumstances.
• Applicability of the jurisdictional High Court and Supreme Court decisions regarding delay condonation.

Observations

• The Tribunal held that filing the return of loss within the time prescribed by section 139(1) is a mandatory requirement under section 80 to claim carry forward of business loss.
• The tribunal observed that powers to condone the delay rest only with the CBDT under section 119(2)(b), not with appellate authorities such as CIT(A) or ITAT.
• Reliance placed by the assessee on decisions such as Western Arch Developers and ADCC Infocom was found misplaced, as these related to CBDT’s powers and not appellate authorities.
• Medical exigency or hardship, while sympathetic, cannot override explicit statutory language or be a ground to relax fiscal statutes.
• The Tribunal cited the Supreme Court decision in Wipro Ltd., confirming that the requirement is a ‘condition precedent’ and not a procedural formality.
• The appeal was dismissed; the denial of set-off was upheld as being in accordance with the law.