Dismissing the petition the Court held that  filing of returns under section 139(4) would not take away the liability of filing the return “in due time” as provided in section 276CC, merely because no notice was issued by the Department prior to filing of the return. The words “in due time” used in section 276CC of the Income-tax Act, 1961 are significant and relate to non-furnishing of return within the time in terms of sub-section (1) or indicated in the notes given under sub-section (2) of section 139. There is no provision for condonation of the infraction even if a return is filed in terms of sub-section (4) of section 139 because due time as prescribed under sub-section (1) or (2) of section 139 would not get diluted by filing return under section 139(4) much later as it is against the legislative intent. Therefore, the ratio therein being that, though, the plea of lack of culpable mental state may be evoked by an accused in defence, that cannot be seen at the time of filing of the complaint or at the stage of taking cognizance in terms of the provisions contained in section 278E(1) which deals with presumption of existence of such mental state being a matter of trial, the application was  dismissed. Court also held that  the assessee’s contention that return was filed prior to issuance of any notice by the Department was to be examined in terms of the use of word “or” under sub-section (1) or (2) of section 139. The word “or” is normally disjunctive and “and” is normally conjunctive and “or” in its natural sense denotes an “alternative” and is not read as “substitutive”. (AY.2015-16)