Judgment :- K. A. THANIKKACHALAM J. At the instance of the Department, the Tribunal referred the following question for the opinion of this court under section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 "Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal is correct in law in holding that the assessee is entitled to carry forward the loss even though it has submitted the return of income belatedly ?" The assessee is a partner in a firm called Orvee Construction Company. The return for the year under reference should have been filed by July 31, 1975, but it was filed on October 9, 1975, disclosing a loss of Rs. 61, 730. That included the assessee's share of loss from Orvee Construction of Rs. 82, 825. After setting off the income from business and after making certain disallowances, the net loss was determined by the Income-tax Officer at Rs. 60, 019 by his order dated January 16, 1979. Instead of carrying forward this loss to be set off against the income of future years, the Income-tax Officer declined to carry forward that loss on the ground that though the return of income was due on July 31, 1975, as per the provisions of section 139(1) it was filed only on October 9, 1975, and the assessee had not produced any evidence to show that extension of time for filing the return belatedly was asked for and granted by the Income-tax Officer and that, therefore, the loss cannot be carried forward Against such refusal to carry forward the loss to the subsequent years, the assessee filed an appeal before the Appellate Assistant Commissioner. The Appellate Assistant Commissioner held that though no application for extension of time was filed by the assessee, the assessee had reasonable cause for the delay in filing the return because the particulars of share income from the firm Orvee Construction Company were not available to the assessee till the firm itself filed its return of income, that the firm applied for extension of time to file its return of income and that therefore, the delay in the filing of the return by the firm constituted reasonable cause for the assessee to delay the submission of his return. The Appellate Assistant Commissioner observed that the Income-tax Officer should have, on the merits, appreciated the reasons for the delay in the filing of the return and carried forward the loss. He held that a return filed within the time specified under section 139 of the Act is still a valid return and the loss has to be determined and carried forward as a matter of course under section 72(1) read with section 80 of the Income-tax Act even though the return was not filed within the time provided under section 139(1). He relied upon a decision of the Calcutta High Court in Presidency Medical Centre (P.) Ltd. v. CIT. Aggrieved, the Department filed a second appeal before the Tribunal. The Tribunal, following the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of CIT v. Kulu Valley Transport Co. (P.) Ltd. and the decision of the Calcutta High Court in Presidency Medical Centre's case confirmed the order passed by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner Before us, learned standing counsel for the Department, submitted that the Tribunal was not correct in accepting the return filed by the assessee belatedly without any application for condoning the delay. According to learned standing counsel, the Tribunal cannot suo motu condone the delay in filing the return, when there was no request made by the assessee in that behalf. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the assessee, while supporting the order passed by the Tribunal submitted that the order of the Tribunal is in accordance with the various decisions including that of the Supreme Court in Kulu Valley Transport Corporation (P.) Ltd. We have heard learned standing counsel for the Department and learned counsel appearing for the assessee. In the present case, for the assessment year 1975-76, a return was filed disclosing a loss of Rs. 61, 720. The return ought to have been filed by July 31, 1975 ; but it was filed only on October 9, 1975. There was no request from the assessee to condone the delay in filing the return. The assessee wanted the Department to determine the loss and permit the assessee to carry forward the loss to the subsequent years, to be set off against the income of future years. There was no request from the assessee to condone the delay in filing the return. The assessee wanted the Department to determine the loss and permit the assessee to carry forward the loss to the subsequent years, to be set off against the income of future years. The Income-tax Officer was of the view that since the return was filed belatedly and the delay in filing the return was not condoned, the assessee will not be permitted to carry forward the loss to the subsequent years. The Tribunal was of the view that the return filed by the assessee must be taken to have been filed under section 139(4) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 1982 UPTC 129 (All) ; C. P. Sarathy Mudaliar v. CIT(AP) ; Telster Advertising Pvt. Ltd. v. CIT; Presidency Medical Centre (P.) Ltd. v. CIT; CIT v. Nagpur Steel and Alloys (P.) Ltd.; Co-operative Marketing Society Ltd. v. CIT; and CIT v. Bankipur Iron Works Ltd. 1980 (3) Taxman 484. In CIT v. R. Chandran the Kerala High Court also took the same view. Lastly, the Guwahati High Court has also taken the same view in CIT v. K. C. Bezbarua. All these cases were based upon the decision of the Supreme Court in Kulu Valley Transport Company (P.) Ltd. In view of the foregoing reasons, we see that there is no infirmity in the order passed by the Tribunal in affirming the order passed by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner in directing the Assessing Officer to process the return filed by the assessee belatedly, but within the time specified under section 139(4)(b) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, and allowing the assessee to carry forward the loss to the subsequent years. Accordingly, we answer the question referred to us in the affirmative and against the Department. No costs.