V.P. ELHENCE, J.M. These two appeals, filed by different assessees, arise out of separate orders, both dt. 30th Sept., 1985, of ld. AAC, Dehradun for asst. yr. 1981- 82. Since point raised in both appeals as also facts are common, these appeals are being disposed of, for sake of convenience, by one common order. assessees who are individuals, are partners in registered firm M/s Bishambhar Sahai Surender Kumar, Roorkee having 50 per cent share each. For asst. yr. 1978-79 said firm was assessed at loss of Rs. 60,000 which was allocated between tow partners in equal shares i.e. at Rs. 30,000 each. Similarly for asst. yr. 1979-80 said firm was assessed at loss of Rs. 90,000 and loss was allocated equally between two partners i.e. @ Rs. 45,000 each. For asst. yr 1980-81, however, said firm was assessed at positive income of Rs. 22,670. Since it was case of registered firm losses suffered by it for asst.yrs. 1978-79 and 1979-80 could not be carried forward and set off as provisions of s. 75(2) came in way. It is admitted case that for asst. yrs. 1978-79 and 1979-80 for which losses were apportioned between two partners from firm, partners did not file any returns within time allowed by s. 139. returns were filed on 15th March, 1983 only which were no returns in eyes of law. For asst. yr. 1981-82 in question, both assessees claimed set off of amounts of Rs 65,221 each representing unabsorbed business loss of aforesaid earlier y e r s had been determined in case of either of these assessees. Accordingly, he refused to allow set off claimed. matter was, therefore, taken up by assessees in first appeal before AAC. case of assessees before ld. AAC was that ITO was bound to carry forward and adjust aforesaid loss because same had been duly determined in case of firm. However, ld. AAC did not accept assessees' submissions. He also relied upon decision dt. 2nd Aug., 1984 of Nagpur Bench of Tribunal in case of Anantlal Singhee vs. ITO (1985) 11 ITD 263 (Nag). In appeals before us Shri H.G. Malik, ld. counsel for assessee, reiterated contentions put forward on behalf of assessees before IT authorities. He also referred before IT authorities. He also referred to provisions of s. 67(4), 70,80,139,158 and 182(2). Reliance was also placed by him on opinions expressed in following two articles: (1) Article by Shri V.S. Ashok Kumar reported in (1984) 43 CTR (Articles) 41. (2) Article by Shri K.N. Balasubramanian reported in (1985) 45 CTR (Articles) 139. He submitted that in case of partner in registered firm, his right to have his share of loss from set off and carried forward in his own case arises from registered firm's assessment determining loss and apportioning it among partners and that neither filing of loss return under s. 139(3) by partner nor fresh determination of loss in his own assessment as per s.80 is necessary. He also reiterated view taken by Shri Balasubramanian in his article that when partner has no income of his now, there is no need at all to file return and to have assessment made for having share of loss set off againt his share of profit in later year. According to him, it is only when he has other incomes that he has to file return and have assessment made nor for determining loss but for having share of loss first set off against his other income and carrying forward balance. Lastly, shri Malik submitted that in case two views were possible on subject, view in favour of assessee had to be taken, on basis of well known decision of Supreme Court in case of CIT vs. Vegetable Prodcuts Ltd. 1973 CTR (SC) 177: (1973) 88 ITR 192 (SC). On other hand Shri D.K. Sharma, ld. departmental representative kly relied upon orders of ITA. Additionally he placed reliance on principle underlying decision of Hon'ble Calcutta High Court in case of Katihar Match Works (1954) (P) Ltd. vs. CIT (1975) 99 ITR 251 (Cal). We have considered rival submissions as also decisions referred to above. Chapter VI of IT Act, 1961 contains ss. 66 to 80. Sec. 80 is section which prescribes procedure for set off brought forward loses. For assessment year in question s.80 stood in following terms: "Notwithstanding anything contained in this Chapter, no loss which has not been determined in pursuance of return filed under s. 139 shall be carried forward and set off under sub-s. (1) of s. 74 or sub-s. (3) of s. 74A." set off claimed by assessees in present case was one which fell under s. 72. Sec. 80 opens with non-obstinate clause and therefore, its provisions could not be diluted or whittled down by any of provisions contained in ss. 66 to 79. Sec. 80 firstly required that there should have been return filed under s. 139 and secondly that loss hold have been determined in pursuance of said return. It is only if both these conditions were satisfied that assessees could justifiably claim set off of losses. In present cases none of these two requirement was admittedly satisfied. Therefore, s. 80 came in way of assessees. It may be that opinions expressed by authors on whose articles assessees have placed reliance were different, but that would not affect position pointed out by us above. In fact in article of Shri K.N. Balasubramanian decision of Nagpur Bench of Tribunal has been referred to but view contrary to same has been take. In fact at one stage Shri Malik for assessee also submitted to us that we should consider reference of matter for decision of larger bench. However, in view of what has been stated above and since our view is also same as had been taken by Nagpur Bench, we do not consider that such course of action is necessary. In Nagpur Bench case (supra) assessee derived share income from firm of which he was partner. In course of assessee proceedings for 1980-81 assessee claimed set off in respect of share of loss from firm for asst. yrs. 1977-78 and 1979-80. claim was rejected by ITO as assessee had not filed any return of income for those years and no loss had been determined in pursuance of same. In appeal AAC upheld order of ITO. In second appeal it was held by Tribunal that for assessee to claim set off of loss, he had to file return within time allowed under s. 139(1) and that when no return was filed, s.80 operated as statutory bar against any loss being considered for being set off in subsequent assessment. facts in that case were exactly similar to facts of present cases and therefore, we would respectfully follow said decision, In present cases and therefore, we would respectfully follow said decision, In case of Katihar March, Works (1954) (P) Ltd. (supra) assessee had filed loss return beyond time prescribed under Indian IT Act, 1922. ITO held that assessee s claim to get loss determined was barred under s. 22 (2A) and that there was no obligation on him to complete assessment in such event and he dropped proceedings. appeal filed by assessee against that order was dismissed by ld. AAC holding that there could be no appeal against such order. order of AAC was confirmed in second appeal by Tribunal. In High Court it was held that order of ITO could not be considered as computation of amount of loss at nil and that true effect of that order was that there had been no determination of loss by ITO and therefore, order was not applicable. principle underlying this decision therefore, is that when no return of loss is filed within prescribed time by assessees, no loss can be said to have been determined in terms of s. 80 and therefore, no set off can be claimed. Since we have clearly held that his is not case wherein two views were possible and that assessees were clearly desalted to claim set off of loss under plain meaning of s. 80, principle underlying deacon of Supreme Court in case of Vegetable Products Ltd. (Supra) cannot be attracted to advantage of assessee. result is that both appeals must fall and be dismissed. appeals are accordingly dismissed. *** BISHAMBER SAHAI v. INCOME TAX OFFICER