Petitioners filed revised return of income of the amalgamated company had been filed by the respective petitioners beyond the prescribed period as stipulated under section 139(5) of the Act. AO held that since the revised returns of income had been filed beyond the prescribed period as stipulated under section 139(5) of the Act and condonation of delay had not been obtained from the Board in accordance with section 119(2)(b) of the Act read with CBDT Circular No.9 of 2015, as also the petitioners having filed the return manually had not complied with rule 12(3) of the Income Tax Rules by filing the revised returns electronically, the revised returns of income were invalid. On writ allowing the petition the Court held that Paragraph 64 (c) of the scheme of arrangement and amalgamation approved by the National Company Law Tribunal permits the respective petitioners to file revised returns of income beyond the prescribed period without incurring any liability on account of interest, penalty or any other sum. As seen from section 139(5) of 1961 Act, they relate to cases where the assessee discovers any omission or any wrong statement in the original return of income. But in the case on hand, the revised returns of income have been filed pursuant to the scheme of arrangement and amalgamation approved by National Company Law under section 391 of the Companies Act, 1956. Therefore, the submission made by the respondents, that any revised return of income will have to be filed before the expiry of one year from the end of the relevant assessment year or before the completion of the assessment, whichever is earlier is not correct as section 139(5) of 1961 Act, is not applicable for the case on hand.   Followed Pentamedia Graphics Ltd. v. ITO [2012] 20 taxmann.com 755 (Mad.)(HC)  and JK Bombay (P) Ltd. v. New Kaiser-I Hind Spg. & Wvg. Co. AIR 1970 SC 1041 where in the Court held that the approval of the scheme of arrangement and amalgamation by the National Company Law Tribunal gives statutory force to the said scheme. Insofar as rule 12(3) of the Income Tax Rules, 1962, which requires filing of returns electronically is concerned, the petitioner cannot be rendered remediless just because the income tax website did not allow a window to the respective petitioners for filing returns of income electronically as the revised returns of income were filed beyond the prescribed period as stipulated under section 139(5) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 the rules of procedure are handmaid of justice. It should not be an obstruction in the aid of justice. As rightly observed by Krishna Iyer, J., in the case of Sushil Kumar Sen v. State of Bihar [1975] 1 SCC 774, the procedure should be the handmaid, not the mistress of legal justice which vests with residuary power in the Judges to act ex debito justitiae, where the tragic sequel otherwise would be wholly inequitable.  Accordingly the petitions are allowed and the respondent is directed to receive the revised returns of income filed by the respective petitioners pursuant to the scheme of arrangement and amalgamation approved by the National Company Law Tribunal, Chennai and complete the assessment for the assessment years 2015-2016 and 2016-2017 in accordance with law. (AY. 2015-16, 206-17)