In this appeal by assessee, interesting question has been posed for our decision, namely, whether ITO was required to set off losses relating to earlier years even though same had not been determined in pursuance of returns filed under section 139 of Income-tax Act, 1961 ('the Act'), relating to those years. 2. assessee derives share income from firm, Vijay Khandsari Sugar Mills, Nagpur, of which he is partner. In course of assessment proceedings for assessment year 1980-81, assessee claimed set off in respect of share of loss from firm, Indian Fabric Corporation, for assessment years 1976-77, 1977-78 and 1979-80. ITO, however, allowed share of loss from this firm for assessment year 1976-77 to be set off as same had been determined in pursuance of return filed for that year and allowed to be carried forward for set off in future. He, however, denied benefit of set off in respect of share of loss from this firm for assessment years 1977-78 and 1979-80, as assessee had not filed any returns of income for these years and no loss had been determined in pursuance of same. 3. Aggrieved with same, assessee filed appeal before AAC, who in his order, dated 22-1-1983, confirmed action of ITO. Shri Dewani, appearing for assessee before AAC, contended that claim of assessee for set off of loss for this year could not be denied merely on ground, that loss had not been determined and in support of same, cited decision of Madras High Court in CIT v. Dalmia Cement (Bharat) Ltd. [1976] 104 ITR 337. After considering this decision, AAC concluded that facts in decided case referred to, could be distinguished from facts of present case and, therefore, ratio of that decision would not be applicable to case on hand. He noticed, that decision of Madras High Court in Dalmia Cement (Bharat) Ltd.'s case, assessee had filed returns for assessment years 1952-53 to 1954-55, showing loss belatedly and ITO, therefore, refused to take notice of same on ground, that returns had not been filed within time allowed under section 22(2A) read with section 22(1) of Indian Income-tax Act, 1922. He, accordingly, ignored those returns and did not compute loss for those years. Tribunal, however, directed ITO to determine loss for these years as assessee had applied for extension of time and returns were filed within extended time limit. He also noticed that Tribunal did not give any such direction to ITO in respect of assessment years 1950-51 and 1951-52, for which assessee had not filed returns within statutory period and assessments for those years had become time barred when returns were filed. On these facts, AAC noticed, that High Court had concluded that returns relating to 1952-53 to 1954-55, having been filed within extended time limit and also having regard to decision in CIT v. Kulu Valley Transport Co. (P.) Ltd. [1970] 77 ITR 518 (SC), that though return disclosing loss is not filed in time as per general notice under section 22(1) or section 22(2A) of 1922 Act, provisions of section 24(1) and (2) of 1922 Act should be taken into account for purpose of granting relief to assessee, and that Tribunal was justified in directing ITO to determine losses relating to assessment years 1952-53 to 1954-55 for purpose of granting relief to assessee. Since, in present case, assessee had not filed returns for these years even within extended time limit under section 139(4) of Act, assessee was not entitled to claim set off of losses relating to this year. He, accordingly, declined to direct ITO to determine loss relating to these years and set off same in assessment for year under consideration. 4. Aggrieved with above decision, assessee is in appeal before us. Shri Dewani appearing for assessee, while conceding that returns for these years were not filed by assessee, however, submitted, that ITO was under obligation to determine losses relating to these years, as assessee had made such claim during course of assessment proceedings for this year. According to him, section 80 of Act interpreted in light of decision of Madras High Court in Dalmia Cement (Bharat) Ltd.'s case, is capable of entitling assessee to claim set off of loss relating to earlier years, even though no such loss had been determined in pursuance of returns filed for those years under section 139. Shri Charles, learned senior departmental representative, supported order of AAC with reference to return form and submitted that no statutory obligation was cast on ITO, while completing assessment to determine loss relating to earlier years and set off of same. He further submitted that Act enables assessee only to claim set off in respect of losses relating to earlier years computed in pursuance of returns filed within statutory time limits for those years. 5. After careful consideration of rival submissions, relevant provisions of statute and authorities cited, we are unable to agree with proposition made on behalf of appellant, that ITO was bound to compute loss relating to earlier years and set off same, even though no returns had been filed in respect of those years under section 139. In this connection, reference to following provisions of Income-tax Act is necessary to understand implications of argument of assessee. Under section 139(3), assessee may furnish, within time allowed under section 139(1) or within such further time as case may be, return of loss in prescribed form, if he is desirous of having loss sustained by him, carried forward and set off under sections 72, 73 and 74 of Act. Section 80 lays down that no loss which has not been determined in pursuance of return filed under section 139, shall be carried forward and set off under sections 72, 73 or 74. reading of these two sections carefully would indicate that for assessee to claim set off of loss, he should file return within time allowed under sub- section (1) of section 139. Under section 80, no loss which has not been determined in pursuance of return filed under section 139, shall be carried forward and set off. time limit for submission of loss return under section 139(3) was subject-matter of interpretation by Supreme Court in case of Kulu Valley Transport Co. (P.) Ltd. In that case, their Lordships held that though return disclosing loss was not filed in time as required under section 139(3) read with section 139(1), assessee would not lose right of set off of loss, if he has filed return after period prescribed under sub- section (1) of section 139, but within time allowed under sub-section (4) of section 139. Therefore, what we have to see in this case is whether assessee had filed any returns relating to these years at least within time allowed under section 139(4). While enquiring into this aspect, we, however, find that assessee had not filed any returns relating to these years even within extended time available to assessee under section 139(4). When no return has been filed, section 80 provides statutory bar against any loss, which has not been determined in pursuance of return filed under section 139, being considered and set off in subsequent assessment. For sake of convenience, we would reproduce hereunder provisions of section 80: " Notwithstanding anything contained in this Chapter, no loss which has not been determined in pursuance of return filed under section 139, shall be carried forward and set off under sub-section (1) of section 72 or sub-section (2) of section 73 or sub-section (1) of section 74 or sub-section (3) of section 74A. " Since no returns relating to assessment years in respect of which set off of loss has been claimed have been filed, there is no statutory obligation on ITO to compute loss in assessment of year under consideration and set off same. facts in Dalmia Cement (Bharat) Ltd.'s case, relied upon on behalf of assessee, are entirely different. In that case, assessee applied for extension of time for submission of returns and also obtained extension for filing returns from ITO. Returns were filed within extended time but, however, ITO, after enquiry, closed proceedings, observing that he would not take notice of returns which were filed beyond time limit prescribed under section 22(1) and 22(2A) of 1922 Act, corresponding to section 139(1) and 139(3) of 1961 Act. On appeal, Tribunal directed ITO to compute losses relating to these years and set off same in subsequent years' assessments. On further appeal, High Court, following Supreme Court's decision in Kulu Valley Transport Co. (P.) Ltd.'s case, upheld action of Tribunal in directing ITO to determine loss relating to those years and to grant set off of same. From above facts, it would be clearly noticed, that, in decided case, returns were filed within extended time limit under section 139(4) and, therefore, ITO had statutory obligation to compute loss relating to those years, as per interpretation of Supreme Court in Kulu Valley Transport Co. (P.) Ltd.'s case. In present case, no such returns had been filed by assessee for years in question. Therefore, section 80, referred to earlier, would automatically apply to facts of this case, namely, that no loss which has not been determined in pursuance of return filed under section 139 shall be carried forward and set off. We, are, therefore, unable to agree with Shri Dewani, learned counsel for assessee, that, section 80 read in light of learned counsel for assessee, that, section 80 read in light of decision of Madras High Court in Dalmia Cement (Bharat) Ltd.'s case, supports his view in this regard. As we have observed earlier, facts in two cases are totally different. We, therefore, dismiss appeal filed by assessee and confirm order of AAC. *** ANANTLAL SINGHEE v. INCOME TAX OFFICER