Judgment :- R. JAYASIMHA BABU, J. The Revenue contends that reference to "extension" in section 139 implies that the extension should be sought before the expiry, it is impermissible to seek or grant any extension. We do not find any substance in the argument of counsel for the Revenue. The section merely empowers the officer to enlarge the time within which the returns should be filed by the assessee, if the application were to be made for extra time. The fact that the word "extension" is used does not imply that the request should have been made before the expiry of the initial period. The extension is granted only when the officer agrees to enlarge the time and it is in that sense, the word "extension" has been used in that provision. By extending time, he permits the assessee to do what the assessee should have done earlier but has in fact done later or proposed to do later. Had it been the intention of Parliament to compel the assessee to seek time before the expiry of the initial period, the appropriate language such as that the application should be made prior to the expiry of the initial period would have been used in that provision. The extension of time is meant for the benefit of the assessee and we do not see any reason whatsoever to cut down the magnitude of the provision and restrict the benefit given to the assessee. Even Form No. 6 prescribed under the Rules requires the assessee to state that it is "not possible/has not been possible" to file the return of income. It is obvious, that the words "is not possible" can be used only where the time has not expired and the words "has not been possible", have to be used where time has already expired. For the form prescribed it is quite clear that it is meant to cover situations where the time had not expired as also the situations where the time had expired.The reference of the question proposed, namely, whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in holding that the assessee is entitled to carry forward the loss though Form No. 6 was filed along with the return of income on December 20, 1990, for the assessment year 1988-89 ? is wholly unnecessary and we do not find any merit in this TCP. The TCP is dismissed, with costs in the sum of Rs. 1, 000 (rupees one thousand) only.