JUDGMENT : S.C. Mohapartra, J. - The statement of case has been made to this court u/s 256(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act" ), on the following question of law : "Whether, in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was correct in directing the carry forward of the loss of Rs. 2,44,780 to the subsequent year ?" 2. There is no dispute in this case that loss determined in pursuance of a return filed in accordance with Section 139(3) of the Act can be carried forward. However, Section 80 of the Act provides that such loss cannot be carried forward in the circumstances indicated therein. It reads as follows : "80. Submission of return for losses.--Notwithstanding anything contained in this Chapter, no loss which has not been determined in pursuance of a return filed u/s 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." 3. The dispute in this case by the Department is that the returns u/s 139(1) of the Act having been filed late, there is no scope for the assessee to get the advantage of carrying forward the loss on account of the bar u/s 80 of the Act. 4. In respect of the assessment year 1977-78, the assessee filed the return on September 4, 1977. In the said return, there was no indication of the loss to be carried forward. Return was required to be filed on or before July 31, 1977, u/s 139(1) of the Act. The assessee, however, filed a revised return on March 20, 1979, showing a net loss of Rs. 2,55,180. The Income Tax Officer computed the loss from the business at Rs. 2,44,780 but refused to carry forward the same on the finding that the return was not filed in time. In appeal by the assessee before the Appellate Assistant Commissioner, it was urged by the assessee that, in view of the decision in Commissioner of Income Tax, Punjab Vs. Kulu Valley Transport Co. P. Ltd. the loss as determined should have been allowed to be carried forward for set-off against future profits. This was accepted in appeal against which the Revenue preferred appeal before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Cut-tack Bench. Kulu Valley Transport Co. P. Ltd. the loss as determined should have been allowed to be carried forward for set-off against future profits. This was accepted in appeal against which the Revenue preferred appeal before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Cut-tack Bench. It was urged by the Revenue before the Tribunal that the decision of the Supreme Court is no more applicable in view of the amendment made to Section 139 by the Taxation Laws (Amendment) Act, 1970, with effect from April 1, 1971. According to the departmental representative, the return was not filed either within time provided u/s 139 or within such other time allowed by the Income Tax Officer. Accordingly, the return filed is not in accordance with Section 139(3) of the Act. The Tribunal relied upon the decision of the Calcutta High Court in Presidency Medical Centre (P.) Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, and affirmed the appellate order. On that account, this reference has been made to this court. 5. Before the Direct Tax Laws (Amendment) Act, 1987, with effect from April 1, 1989, Section 139(4)(a) which was substituted by the Finance Act, 1968, with effect from April 1, 1968, and amended by the Taxation Laws (Amendment) Act, 1970, with effect from April I, 1971, stood as under : "4 (a) Any person who has not furnished a return within the time allowed to him under Sub-section (1) or Sub-section (2) may, before the assessment is made, furnish the return for any previous year at any time before the end of the period specified in Clause (b), and the provisions of Sub-section (8) shall apply in every such case ; (b) the period referred to in Clause (a) shall be -- (i) where the return relates to a previous year relevant to any assessment year commencing on or before the 1st day of April, 1967, four years from the end of such assessment year ; (ii) where the return relates to a previous year relevant to the assessment year commencing on the 1st day of April, 1968, three years from the end of the assessment year ; (iii) where the return relates to a previous year relevant to any other assessment year, two years from the end of such assessment year." 6. The revised return was filed on March 20, 1979, within two years of the date by which the return was required to be filed u/s 139(1) of the Act. Accordingly, the submission on behalf of the Revenue that the decision of the Supreme Court in Commissioner of Income Tax, Punjab Vs. Kulu Valley Transport Co. P. Ltd., would have no application is not tenable. The Calcutta High Court, in the decision in Presidency Medical Centre (P.) Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax observed : "... the alteration in the new Act by which there has been curtailment of the right of the Income Tax Officer to extend the time, does not materially affect the situation in this case ..." 7. We also are of the same view. The Madhya Pradesh High Court, in the decision in Co-operative Marketing Society Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax dealing with a case where assessment was made after issue of a notice u/s 148 of the Act in respect of the years 1972-73 and 1973-74 to which Section 139(4) as extracted above applies, relied upon the decision in Commissioner of Income Tax, Punjab Vs. Kulu Valley Transport Co. P. Ltd., of the Supreme Court and held that the return, though not originally filed, was filed pursuant to the notice u/s 148 of the Act and is a return u/s 139 although the provisions of Section 139(3) of the Act have not been complied with by the assessee. In view of the well-discussed decisions of the Calcutta High Court and the Madhya Pradesh High Court referred to above, we are satisfied that the contention of the Revenue has no force and the Tribunal was correct in affirming the appellate order. 8. Accordingly, we answer the question in the affirmative and against the Revenue by stating that, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was correct in directing the carry forward of the loss of Rs. 2,44,780 to the subsequent year. There shall be no order as to costs. K.C. Jagadeb Roy, J. 9. I agree.