ORDER : SONIA GOKANI, J. 1. The petitioner is a company engaged in the business of manufacturing of plastic films. The due date for filing return of income under Section 139(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘the Act’ for short) for Assessment Year 2018-19 was 31.10.2018. The petitioner company submitted manual return of income for AY 2018-19 on 02.01.2023 as the petitioner could file return electronically owing to it being beyond the time limit prescribed under Section 139 of the Act. 2. The due date for filing return on income under Section 139(1) for AY 2019-20 was 31.10.2019. The same was filed on 30.11.2020 under Section 139(4) of the Act. 3. One Rassendra Chem Export Private Limited in the capacity of operational creditor preferred an application under Section 9 of the IBC for initiation of Corporation Insolvency Resolution Process (‘CIRP’ for short) against the petitioner Corporation debtor before the NCLT, Ahmedabad. The moratorium was imposed while admitting the application under by the NCLT vide its order dated 12.11.2018 under Section 14 of the IBC. The corporate insolvency resolution process was initiated against the company, pursuant to this admission of the application. 4. Mr.Narayan Gajanan Vidvan was appointed as Interim Resolution Professional (’IRP’ for short) on 12.11.2018 which caused the public announcement and collated the claims received. The Committee of Creditors (‘CoC’ for short) came to be constituted on 07.12.2018 in view of Section 21 of the IBC, comprising of Sole Financial Creditor, viz., Bank of Baroda. 5. The IRP came to be replaced by Mr. Vijay P. Lulla, who was appointed as Resolution Professional (‘RP’ for short) by NCLT on 13.06.2019. 6. The RP published invitation for Expression of Interest (‘EOI’ for short) to eligible / prospective eligible resolution petitioner for submission of resolution plans. Four EOIs were received. The CoC after much deliberations approved the resolution plan of Kankriya Enterprises Private Limited in its meeting by 100% voting on 19.09.2019. 7. The petitioner, on approval of resolution plan by the Committee of Creditors, the Resolution Profession preferred Interlocutory Application No.617 of 2019 for approval of plan under Section 31 of the IBC before the NCLT, which was, on 04.09.2020, exhaustively considered the plan and approved the same w.e.f. 04.09.2020. 8. 7. The petitioner, on approval of resolution plan by the Committee of Creditors, the Resolution Profession preferred Interlocutory Application No.617 of 2019 for approval of plan under Section 31 of the IBC before the NCLT, which was, on 04.09.2020, exhaustively considered the plan and approved the same w.e.f. 04.09.2020. 8. Pursuant to the said approval, the erstwhile management was replaced by a new Board constituted with adequate representation from the members of the Resolution Applicant viz., Kankriya Enterprises Pvt. Ltd., and independent Directors in compliance with applicant law as per Clause 4.7.1 of the Resolution Plan. 9. The new management filed the return of income on 15.03.2022 for AY 2021-22 and has set off the brought forward business losses. The same was processed under Section 143(1) on 22.09.2022. The demand was raised after disallowing the brought forward losses as the same was not filed within the time stipulated under Section 139(1) of the Act. 10. For AY 2021-22, the same was taken up for scrutiny and so called draft assessment order was served upon the petitioner company proposing the disallow the brought forward losses on the ground that the return for AY 2019-20 was furnished beyond the due date specified under Section 139(1) of the Act. 11. The petitioner sought adjournment to respond to such draft assessment order. The National Faceless Assessment Centre, without considering the adjournment request, passed final assessment order disallowing the set off of brought forward losses. 12. Serious implications have been noticed by the petitioner. His business losses incurred for AY 2018-19 and 2019-20 were not allowed to be carried forward and set off in the subsequent AY 2021-22 because due to inadvertence or mistake on the part of erstwhile management in non-filing the return of income for these years. 13. According to the petitioner, Section 31 of the IBC deals with approval of resolution plan and the same would be binding to the various stakeholders, including the Central Government. 14. The object of IBC is the revival of the corporation debtor and to ensure that it runs as a going concern. The successful resolution applicant cannot be burdened with the surprise claims, on which the decision of Apex Court in case of Committee of Creditors of Essar Steel India Limited versus Satish Kumar Gupta & Ors. - [2019] 111 Taxmann.com 234 (SC) is relied upon. 15. The successful resolution applicant cannot be burdened with the surprise claims, on which the decision of Apex Court in case of Committee of Creditors of Essar Steel India Limited versus Satish Kumar Gupta & Ors. - [2019] 111 Taxmann.com 234 (SC) is relied upon. 15. The grievance, in short, of the petitioner is that due to inaction on the part of the erstwhile management or resolution professional, the genuine business loss is not allowed to be carried forward for all times to come and if the delay is not condoned, the petitioner company would suffer, although there is a genuine hardship on account of the inaction on the part of the erstwhile management. Prayers sought for are as follows : “30(a) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus to the respondent No.1 - CBDT to decide the applications filed under Section 119(2)(b) of the Act for AY 2018-19 and AY 2019-20 (Annexure-A and Annexure-B] within such time as deemed fit by this Hon’ble Court. (b) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus to the respondent No.1 – CBDT to accept the return of income for AY 2018-19 filed manually and decide the application under Section 119(2)(b) of the Act on its merits. (c) Pass any such other writ or order(s) as it may deem fit and proper in the interest of justice.” 16. This Court issued notice on 17.01.2023 by passing the following order : “The petitioners seek direction to the respondent No.1– Central Board of Direct Taxes to decide the applications dated 2nd January 2023 moved under Section 119(2)(b) of the I.T.Act for condonation of delay in filing the return of income for the assessment years 2018-19 and 2019-20 which had been missed out by the Resolution Professional, when the proceedings under the IB Code were going on. It is the case of the petitioner that the company would suffer serious hardship as the entire business loss could not be permitted to be carried forward for set off against the profit of the subsequent years for no fault of the Management. It is the case of the petitioner that the company would suffer serious hardship as the entire business loss could not be permitted to be carried forward for set off against the profit of the subsequent years for no fault of the Management. As the entire delay has been caused when the company was undergoing CIRP process and moratorium under Section 14 of IB Code was in operation, the prayers sought for by the petitioners are as follows :- “(a) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus to the respondent No.1 CBDT to decide the applications filed under Section 119(2) (b) of the Act for A.Y.2018-19 and A.Y.2019-20 {Annexure-A and Annexure} within such time as deemed fit by this Hon’ble Court. (b) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus to the respondent No.1 CBDT to accept the return of income for AY 2018-19 filed manually and decide the application under Section 119(2)(b) of the Act on its merits. (c) Pass any such other writ or order(s) as it may deem fit and proper in the interest of justice.“ We have heard Mr. Manish Bhatt, learned Sr.Advocate assisted by Ms. Shailee S.Joshi, learned advocate for the petitioners has urged that the application though has been made in the month of January, inexplicable hardship, is being caused if the issue is not addressed well in time. He has also further submitted that what is sought is urgent addressal of the application and the petitioner is ready to approach the Board even while, this Court is considering the request for grant of prayers. Issue Notice to the respondents making it returnable on 6 th February, 2022. It is being made clear that the pendency of this petition shall not be a bar for the respondent to hear the pending application. Direct service is permitted.” 17. We have heard learned senior advocate Mr.M.R. Bhatt assisted by learned advocate Ms.Shailee Joshi for the petitioners and learned senior standing counsel Mr.Nikunt Raval, assisted by learned advocate Mr. Karan Sanghani for the respondents authorities. 18. Direct service is permitted.” 17. We have heard learned senior advocate Mr.M.R. Bhatt assisted by learned advocate Ms.Shailee Joshi for the petitioners and learned senior standing counsel Mr.Nikunt Raval, assisted by learned advocate Mr. Karan Sanghani for the respondents authorities. 18. The petitioners assessees have been seeking the direction from respondent No.1 – Central Board of Direct Taxes, where the request has been made for deciding the application under Section 119(2)(b) of the I.T. Act for condonation of delay in filing the return of income for the Assessment Year 2018-19 and 2019-20, which has been restored by the Resolution Professional. It is not in dispute that in view of Section 14 of the IBC, the moratorium was in operation when the petitioner company was undergoing the CIRP for process. 19. On merit, much has been pleaded by the petitioner. It has heavily relied on the provisions of the IBC as well as various authorities when it had addressed its communication on 02.01.2023 to the Central Board of Direct Taxes. He also dilated this and substantiated the pleadings by various decisions on the subject. 20. Section 119 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 is providing the instructions to subordinate authorities by the Board, which is reproduced as under : “119. He also dilated this and substantiated the pleadings by various decisions on the subject. 20. Section 119 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 is providing the instructions to subordinate authorities by the Board, which is reproduced as under : “119. Instructions to subordinate authorities : (1) The Board may, from time to time, issue such orders, instructions and directions to other income- tax authorities as it may deem fit for the proper administration of this Act, and such authorities and all other persons employed in the execution of this Act shall observe and follow such orders, instructions and directions of the Board: Provided that no such orders, instructions or directions shall be issued- (a) so as to require any income- tax authority to make a particular assessment or to dispose of a particular case in a particular manner; or (b) so as to interfere with the discretion of the Deputy Commissioner (Appeals)] or the Commissioner (Appeals)] in the exercise of his appellate functions.” Further, Section 119(2)(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 provides thus : “(2) Without prejudice to the generality of the foregoing power,- (a) xxx (b) the Board may, if it considers it desirable or expedient so to do for avoiding genuine hardship in any case or class of cases, by general or special order, authorise any income- tax authority, not being a Deputy Commissioner (Appeals) or Commissioner (Appeals)] to admit an application or claim for any exemption, deduction, refund or any other relief under this Act after the expiry of the period specified by or under this Act for making such application or claim and deal with the same on merits in accordance with law. (c) xxx” 21. The petitioner has written on 02.01.2023, however the Board has not responded to this application for condonation of delay in filing the return of income for AY 2018-19 and 2019-20 under Section 119(2)(b) of the Act. 22. Before we actually hear the parties, there was a proposal on the part of the learned senior advocate Mr.Bhatt for the petitioners, seeking the directions against the respondent Board, for it to consider on expeditious basis the request for condonation of delay in filing the return of income for AY 2018-19 and 2019-20. 22. Before we actually hear the parties, there was a proposal on the part of the learned senior advocate Mr.Bhatt for the petitioners, seeking the directions against the respondent Board, for it to consider on expeditious basis the request for condonation of delay in filing the return of income for AY 2018-19 and 2019-20. Responding to the same, learned senior standing counsel Mr.Raval has taken instructions and has no objection to the matter being sent to the Board for its consideration and to be adjudicated at the earliest within a period of six (06) weeks. 23. This Court has not entered into the merits at all and at the time of admission of this matter, with a specific request seeking the direction for the Board to decide the application dated 02.01.2023 at the earliest and since the parties are at ad idem on this issue, it has decided to relegate them and the matter is accordingly being finalized. Let the respondent No.2 take up the matter and decide within six (06) weeks from the date of receipt of the copy of this order. 24. Needless to say that either side shall be at liberty to contest the outcome, if permissible under the law and if it so desires.