The main legal point established in the judgment is that delay in filing the return can be condoned if satisfactorily explained, and the petitioner is entitled to claim the carry forward loss under Section 139(3) of the Income Tax Act.

The petitioner has filed the above Writ Petition to issue a writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records of the first respondent in F.No.312/19/2014-OT dated 05.05.2014 and to quash the same and consequently, direct the first respondent to accept the return of income filed by the Petitioner Company for the assessment year 2010-11 under Section 139(1) of the Act after affording a reasonable opportunity of personal hearing.

2. According to the petitioner, it is a Private Limited Company incorporated under the provisions of the Companies Act and engaged in the business of execution and commissioning of Wind Turbine Generators. As per Section 139 of the Income Tax Act, 2006, the due date for filing of returns is on 30th September of the relevant Assessment year. For the impugned assessment year, the Ministry of Finance-Government of India vide notification in No.402/92/2006-MC (42 of 2010) dated 29.09.2010 has extended the last date for filing of income tax returns from 30.09.2010 to 15.10.2010 on account of disturbance caused by floods. The plea taken by the petitioner is that they kept the required documents ready for filing/uploading the return of income for the assessment year 2010-11 and that they were awaiting certain details with reference to Tax Deducted at Source (TDS) by their bankers and customers etc., and hence, decided to file their returns on 15.10.2010 i.e., on the last date for filing of returns. Further, the petitioner has stated that on 15.10.2010, they had been trying to upload their returns on the online website of the Income Tax Department since 7.00 P.M. However, due to the last hour rush and due to technical snags in the website of the Income Tax Department, the said return could not be uploaded on 15.10.2010 but only in the midnight of 15.10.2010 and hence, the date of filing has been reckoned by the Income Tax Department as 16.10.2010. It is further stated by the petitioner that the third respondent took the date of filing of the return as 16.10.2010 and completed the assessment under Section 143(3) of the Act on 13.03.2013, allowing the carry forward loss of Rs.1,17,38,726/-. The third respondent did not treat the original return to be filed belatedly under Section 139(1) of the Act. The second respondent vide show cause notice dated 03.10.2013 in C.No.2(3)/263/CIT-V/AY 2010-11, in the case of the Petitioner Company, proposed to revise the aforesaid assessment order under Section 263 of the Act for the impugned assessment year 2010-11. In the show cause notice, the second respondent has stated that the benefit of carry forward losses allowed to the Petitioner Company under Section 143(3) is erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue inasmuch as the Petitioner Company has filed their return beyond the last date of filing i.e., 15.10.2010. According to the second respondent, the benefit of carry forward will only be given to a person who had filed the return under Section 139(1) of the Act on or before 15.10.2010 and since the Petitioner Company had filed the return on 16.10.2010, such carry forward loss ought not have been granted by the third respondent in the original assessment under Section 143(3) of the Act and hence, sought to revise the order of assessment under Section 263 of the Act. Thereafter, the petitioner filed an application dated 12.11.2013, before the first respondent requesting them to consider the hardships faced by them in filing the original return on 15.10.2010 which was wrongly reckoned as filed on 16.10.2010 and therefore, to condone the delay of 2 hours in filing their returns and thereby, treat the return filed by them as return under Section 139(1) of the Act to enable the Petitioner Company to claim the carry forward loss under Section 139(3) of the Act. However, the first respondent rejected the prayer made by the petitioner stating that there was no justifiable reason to condone the delay in filing the return of their income by the Petitioner Compa