JUDGMENT M.P. Chandrakantaraj Urs, J.—This matter coming up for orders after notice is disposed of by the following order : The short question which falls for consideration is whether the petitioner is entitled to the reliefs claimed in his application made under sub-section (3) of section 139 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act"), which has remained without disposal, disposed of by writ of mandanus by this court. The facts which are not in dispute are as follows : On June 30, 1986, the petitioner made an application seeking extension of time to file the return for the assessment year 1986-87. Subsequently, on June 31, 1986, he made yet another application seeking further extension of time for filing the return for the same assessment year and that was disposed of and time was granted till December 31, 1986, for the assessee to file the return. It is also not disputed that within the extended time, he did not file the return but actually filed the return on July 31, 1987. So, when time was extended on application made on July 31, 1986, it can not be said that the application was made on June 30, 1986, for the same relief under the same provision of law subsisted for consideration by the Officer. By the subsequent application made, the assessee himself rendered the earlier application infructuous. 2. Therefore, when the duty required to be performed has indeed been performed by the Officer on the subsequent application made, it is needless to compel him to perform the same duty on an earlier application which in the eye of the law does not exist. 3. I may, however, observe that the application made under section 139(3) of the Act before the amendment. That amendment has taken away the discretion of the Income Tax Officer earlier provided to grant extension. 4. The petition is misconceived and it is rejected.