You filed a loss return on paper within the due date because the portal would not let you in. Has the carry-forward gone?
No. The Tribunal held that a return filed manually within the due date under s.139(1) is a valid return, and that filing it on paper rather than electronically makes it at best a defective return and not an invalid one. Section 292B protects a return that substantially complies with the intent of the statute, and the carry-forward of the loss could not be refused on that ground.
Decided by the ITAT (Rajendra, Accountant Member and C.N. Prasad, Judicial Member) on 2017-05-05, reported as ITA No. 3508/Mum/2016, assessment year 2011-12. It bears on section 139(9), section 139(1), section 139(3), section 80, section 292B, section 142(1), section Rule 12 of the Income Tax Act 1961, in Assessment & Scrutiny, How Tax Law Is Read and Appeals matters.
It draws the line the department habitually blurs. A defect is not invalidity. Invalidity under s.139(9) follows only from the failure to cure after intimation, and until that has happened the return stands for the purposes of s.80 read with s.139(3).
Binding on the AO and CIT(A) within the Tribunal's jurisdiction. Persuasive elsewhere.
Read aloud by your device. Press again to stop.
The assessee filed a return manually on 30 November 2011, within the due date under s.139(1), declaring a loss of Rs. 5,40,03,070, explaining that electronic filing had not been possible because of login password problems. An electronic return was filed later, on 11 October 2012, in response to a notice under s.142(1). The Assessing Officer treated only the later electronic return as valid and refused the carry-forward of the loss under s.80.
The appeal was allowed. The Tribunal held that the return filed manually within the due date specified under s.139(1) is a valid return (para 9) and directed recomputation accordingly. The return filed manually may at best be said to be a defective return and not an invalid return (para 8), and the claim for set off and carry forward of losses cannot be denied on too technical a reason.
The Tribunal separated the form of the return from its validity. The statute fixes the due date; the mode of filing is prescribed by the rules. A return on paper filed within the due date is not thereby outside s.139(1). The most that can be said of the departure from the prescribed mode is that it is a defect, and a defect does not by itself make a return invalid: invalidity under s.139(9) follows a failure to cure after intimation. Section 292B reinforces that, protecting a return which is in substance and effect in conformity with the intent and purpose of the Act.
The return filed manually may at best be said to be a defective return and not
Upload it and we will read it, work out your deadline and draft the reply. A CA reviews before anything is filed.
Handle my notice → Ask a CA on WhatsAppNo. The Tribunal held that a return filed manually within the due date under s.139(1) is a valid return, and that filing it on paper rather than electronically makes it at best a defective return and not an invalid one. Section 292B protects a return that substantially complies with the intent of the statute, and the carry-forward of the loss could not be refused on that ground. This was decided by the ITAT (Rajendra, Accountant Member and C.N. Prasad, Judicial Member) and bears on section 139(9), section 139(1), section 139(3), section 80, section 292B, section 142(1), section Rule 12 of the Income Tax Act 1961. It is reported as ITA No. 3508/Mum/2016, assessment year 2011-12. It draws the line the department habitually blurs. A defect is not invalidity. Invalidity under s.139(9) follows only from the failure to cure after intimation, and until that has happened the return stands for the purposes of s.80 read with s.139(3). If it applies to you, the first step is this: Establish that a return was in fact filed within the s.139(1) due date, whatever its form, and produce the acknowledgement or receipt.
The assessee filed a return manually on 30 November 2011, within the due date under s.139(1), declaring a loss of Rs. 5,40,03,070, explaining that electronic filing had not been possible because of login password problems. An electronic return was filed later, on 11 October 2012, in response to a notice under s.142(1). The Assessing Officer treated only the later electronic return as valid and refused the carry-forward of the loss under s.80. The matter was decided on 2017-05-05 by the ITAT (Rajendra, Accountant Member and C.N. Prasad, Judicial Member). On those facts the ITAT held as follows. The appeal was allowed. The Tribunal held that the return filed manually within the due date specified under s.139(1) is a valid return (para 9) and directed recomputation accordingly. The return filed manually may at best be said to be a defective return and not an invalid return (para 8), and the claim for set off and carry forward of losses cannot be denied on too technical a reason.
The Tribunal separated the form of the return from its validity. The statute fixes the due date; the mode of filing is prescribed by the rules. A return on paper filed within the due date is not thereby outside s.139(1). The most that can be said of the departure from the prescribed mode is that it is a defect, and a defect does not by itself make a return invalid: invalidity under s.139(9) follows a failure to cure after intimation. Section 292B reinforces that, protecting a return which is in substance and effect in conformity with the intent and purpose of the Act. In the words reproduced by the source cited on this page: "The return filed manually may at best be said to be a defective return and not"
It was decided by the ITAT on 2017-05-05 and is reported as ITA No. 3508/Mum/2016, assessment year 2011-12. Binding on the AO and CIT(A) within the Tribunal's jurisdiction. Persuasive elsewhere. A Tribunal decision binds the assessing officer and the Commissioner (Appeals) within that Tribunal's jurisdiction, and is persuasive before other benches. It is not binding on a High Court, and a contrary co-ordinate bench decision will be argued against you, so check whether the point has been taken the other way before you build a reply around it. On section 139(9), section 139(1), section 139(3), section 80, section 292B, section 142(1), section Rule 12, the practical question is whether the facts of your own notice match the facts of this case closely enough for the same rule to apply.
It helps the taxpayer. The appeal was allowed. The Tribunal held that the return filed manually within the due date specified under s.139(1) is a valid return (para 9) and directed recomputation accordingly. The return filed manually may at best be said to be a defective return and not an invalid return (para 8), and the claim for set off and carry forward of losses cannot be denied on too technical a reason. It arises in Assessment & Scrutiny, How Tax Law Is Read and Appeals matters, on section 139(9), section 139(1), section 139(3), section 80, section 292B, section 142(1), section Rule 12 of the Income Tax Act 1961, and was decided by Rajendra, Accountant Member and C.N. Prasad, Judicial Member. Before relying on it, read the source linked on this page and check whether it has since been distinguished, overruled or overtaken by an amendment to the Income Tax Act. In practice the steps that follow from it are these. Frame the point as defective and not invalid: invalidity is a consequence of s.139(9) that only follows an intimation and a failure to cure. Plead s.292B alongside, for substantial compliance with the intent and purpose of the Act. Where the electronic return was filed later in response to a s.142(1) notice, do not let the department treat that later date as the date of the return.
Searched for later treatment; none was found. That is not the same as a source affirming it. No later order applying, doubting or dissenting from this one was located on indiankanoon. No source could be cited for that finding. Checking whether an authority still stands matters as much as knowing what it held: a decision may be overruled on one point and survive on another, or the provision it interprets may have been amended since. Read the source and the editor's note on this page before relying on it in a reply to an Assessing Officer or in an appeal.
The two quoted sentences come back truncated at the fetch layer's quotation limit; on the copy read the first continues that it is a defective return and not an invalid return, and the second that the return filed manually within the due date specified under s.139(1) is a valid return. No reporter citation appears on the copy read. The Tribunal did not deal with the separate question whether the department could have issued a s.139(9) notice on the mode of filing, which did not arise. This library shows the verification state of every entry openly. This entry has not yet been read in full by a chartered accountant. The summary reflects the sources listed on this page. Read the source before you rely on it in a reply to an Assessing Officer or in an appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) or the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal.
The appeal was allowed. The Tribunal held that the return filed manually within the due date specified under s.139(1) is a valid return (para 9) and directed recomputation accordingly. The return filed manually may at best be said to be a defective return and not an invalid return (para 8), and the claim for set off and carry forward of losses cannot be denied on too technical a reason.
TaxSphere, “Luxury Goods Retail Pvt Ltd v DCIT”, https://taxnotice.vittsphere.com/caselaw/case/luxury-goods-retail-v-dcit-defective-not-invalid-carry-forward/ (validity last checked 2026-09-17)
The judgment itself is a government work and may be quoted freely. The summary, the validity note and the reasoning on this page are this library's own writing: quote them with attribution, and please do not present either as the words of the court — this page keeps the two apart and so should a quotation of it.
Every entry in this library links to where it was found, so you can check it yourself rather than take our word for it.
The officer's order under s.139(9) says your return is invalid and that you are not entitled to carry forward the loss. Can he decide that in a s.139(9) order?
A declaration was required by the due date and you filed it late. Is that fatal?
I filed my loss return late on my CA's advice and lost the carry-forward. Will the delay be condoned?
The resolution professional never filed the company's returns during the insolvency process. The new management filed them late and the carry forward of losses has gone. Will the Board condone the delay?
