This departmental appeal is directed against order of Commissioner (Appeals) relating to assessment year 1978-79. ground of appeal is as under: " On facts and in circumstances of case, learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) has erred in setting aside assessment and directing Income-tax Officer to take into account revised return filed after issue of draft assessment order under section 143(3) read with section 144B of Income-tax Act." 2. In order to appreciate facts it would be necessary to give certain basic facts in this case. assessee is private limited company and its accounting year ended on 30-6-1977. assessee had filed return declaring loss of Rs. 3,94,618 on 30-8-1979. ITO after examining accounts proposed to make certain additions and made draft assessment order which was sent to IAC along with objections of assessee on 2-3-1981. assessee filed revised return on 3-3-1981 claiming further loss of Rs. 9,04,290 incurred in certain consignments sent to West Germany. While making assessment on 2-9-1981, ITO did not take into consideration this revised return and IAC also did not entertain objection of company regarding consideration of revised return. ITO completed assessment on net income of Rs. 1,86,780. 3. When matter came before Commissioner (Appeals) it was contended by assessee that revised return was bound to be considered by ITO and he could not ignore it merely on ground that draft of assessment order had been sent to IAC under section 144B of Income- tax Act, 1961 (' Act '). According to assessee, assessment was still pending for purpose of filing revised return. Certain decisions of Tribunal were relied upon and it was contended that revised return has to be taken into consideration by ITO. Commissioner (Appeals) accepted this plea of assessee and held that non-consideration of revised return filed on 3-3-1981 was not justified under law. He, therefore, set aside assessment with direction to under revised return and pass fresh assessment order. Commissioner (Appeals) did not go into other grounds taken by assessee. 4. departmental representative submitted before us that after ITO had made this assessment and forwarded it to IAC on 2-3-1981, he cannot take cognizance of any revised return as it is not open to him to send another draft to IAC under section 144B. He relied on decision of Delhi High Court in Sudhir Sareen v. ITO [1981] 128 ITR 445, where it was held that under section 144B ITO could make only one draft order of assessment and he has no power to issue more than one draft order. In that case it was plea of revenue that ITO could issue more than one draft assessment order under section 144B but same was not accepted by High Court. High Court has also considered question of limitation with reference to section 153 of Act, where it is laid down that period not exceeding 180 days is permitted to revenue to complete assessment in addition to normal period when no action under section 144B is taken by department. departmental representative, therefore, contended that it was not open to ITO to take cognizance of revised return. He also submitted that assessment made b y ITO can become final if assessee does not object to additions proposed by him. 5. departmental representative then relied on certain observations made by Third Member in case of Shagoon Emporium v. ITO [1983] 3 ITD 376 (Delhi). In this case IAC had issued his instructions under section 144A of Act while considering ITO's proposals for making addition under section 144B. Third Member had held that after forwarding draft assessment order ITO has no options whatsoever except to incorporate directions of IAC. It was further held that for purposes of issuing instructions under section 144A, it cannot be said that assessment is pending merely because matter is lying with IAC for limited purpose of considering objections of assessee and for issuing directions to ITO under section 144B. Third Member held that once reference was made under section 144B, operation of section 144A was excluded. departmental representative submitted that if ITO could not send second draft under section 144A, it follows that he cannot take into consideration revised return filed after order is sent to IAC under section 144B. He also posed question as to what would happen where revised return is filed after normal period of limitation and submitted that in such case extended period for passing assessment order would not be available. 6. learned counsel for assessee, on other hand, submitted that provisions of section 139 of Act was clear. It provided for filing of revised return till assessment was pending. He submitted that passing of draft order and sending it to IAC cannot mean that assessment had been completed and in case there is objection by assessee, that has to be taken into consideration and assessment has to be made in accordance with instructions issued by IAC. He, however, submitted that till any such final order is passed, assessment is pending and right of assessee to file revised return cannot be taken away merely because ITO has chosen to send draft assessment order to IAC. He relied on certain decisions of Tribunal and submitted that order of Third Member in case of Shagoon Emporium relied upon by departmental representative was distinguishable as in that case there was no question of revised return having been filed. first case to which reference was made was order of Madras Bench in case of South India Shipping Corpn. Ltd. v. ITO [1982] 8 TAXMAN 38 (Mad.-Trib.), where it was held that under section 139(5) assessee has got unqualified right to file his revised return at any time before assessment is made. draft assessment order proposed under section 144B can by no stretch of imagination be taken as amounting to making assessment. ITO can complete assessment only after receiving instructions and directions of IAC. Tribunal held that ITO should act on revised return which is furnished within time specified under law. facts in that case were similar and revised return had been filed before assessment had been made. 7. other order on which he relied was order of Delhi Bench ' C ' in case of ITO v. Sain Steel Products [IT Appeal No. 1620 (Delhi) of 1982, dated 6-9-1983]. He drew attention especially to separate but concurring order passed by Accountant Member in that case and pointed out that all aspects had been considered and it was held that where revised return is filed, aspects had been considered and it was held that where revised return is filed, it must be taken into consideration by ITO. 8. We have carefully considered contentions of departmental representative as well as raised by counsel for assessee. position under normal law is clear. Under section 139 revised return can be filed by assessee where he discovers any omission or any wrong statement therein at any time before assessment is made. Under section 139(4) any person who has not furnished return within time allowed to him under sub-section (1) or sub-section (2) may before that assessment is made furnish return before end of specified period, which for this assessment year would be two years from end of assessment year. In present case this period would have ended on 31-3-1981 and thus there is no dispute that assessee had right to file revised return up to that date. It is of course clear that revised return has to be filed under circumstances specified and they are where assessee discovers any omission or any wrong statement in first return. 9. above normal position is sought to be complicated by introduction of provision under section 144B which requires that before final order is made and ITO proposes to make additions of more than Rs. 1,00,000, he should forward draft assessment order of assessee and obtain his objections which can be then sent to IAC for his directions. These directions are issued after hearing assessee. These directions are binding on ITO. law further provides that where such reference is made to IAC, normal period of limitation for making assessment is extended by maximum period of 180 days from date of forwarding draft order and receipt of directions from IAC. Where no such objections are received to draft order, period of 30 days is allowed beyond normal limitation period. 10. From above analysis of legal position, it would appear that order passed by ITO is draft order and though he cannot change it to detriment of assessee, he can certainly reduce it in final assessment order according to directions of IAC. law clearly contemplates passing of assessment order after passing of draft assessment order and till that time assessment is pending. In these circumstances assessee can certainly file revised return if conditions under section 139(5) are fulfilled. It may also be mentioned that where such revised return is filed, section 153(1)(c) extends period of limitation and assessment can be made up to period of one year from date of filing of revised return. This extended limitation period even goes beyond period of 180 days provided for orders covered under section 144B. In view, of legal position, return filed by assessee has to be taken into consideration by ITO and has to be disposed of on merits. Its non-consideration is not justified merely on ground that ITO had already sent his draft order to IAC. 11. case of department in present case mainly relies on order of Delhi High Court holding that only one draft assessment order can be sent by ITO and on observations of Third Member in case of Shagoon Emporium that as far as ITO is concerned assessment cannot be considered to be pending for purpose of instructions under section 144A and when ITO forwards draft order to IAC for his instructions under section 144B. We will now deal with these objections. 12. close perusal of decision of Delhi High Court in Sudhir Sareen's case clearly shows that they were not considering case of revised return filed by assessee. They were considering simple case where department claimed that ITO could send more than one draft order for approval of IAC. High Court held that ITO could not do so. That was case under writ jurisdiction of High Court, and High Court gave above directions. We have to consider provisions of law harmoniously so as to make it workable. order of Third Member in case of Shagoon Emporium was for deciding specific issue of powers of IAC to issue instruction under section 144A after draft order has been submitted to him under section 144B. In that case, no revised return had been filed and that had not come up for consideration before Tribunal. It would, therefore, not be correct to extend observations in that case to all cases and for all purposes. 13. point whether assessment had been made or is pending, one has to ask only one question ' whether order under section 143(3) or 144 of Act has been passed? '. further question which can be asked is whether assessee can file appeal against draft order passed by ITO. answer would be obviously in negative. various provisions make it clear that draft order is stage before completion of assessment and it cannot be considered as assessment order itself. It is also clear that though IAC is officer providing guidance to ITO, he is not officer for passing assessment order. assessment order has ultimately to be passed by ITO and till then assessment remains pending. 14. Once we come to this conclusion, it becomes clear that assessee can file revised return before completion of such assessment. It is duty of ITO to take into consideration such revised return before making final order. It is for this purpose that law has specially provided for one year's period after filing of revised return for completion of assessment. filing of such revised return and its proper disposal is neither formality nor superfluous proceeding. It is part of integrated procedure for making assessment. After such revised return is filed, ITO is bound to give notice to assessee under section 143(2) unless he is inclined to accept such revised return under section 143(1). Thus, all procedure laid down for making assessment has to be followed once revised return is filed. It is also clear that once such proceedings start on filing of revised return, ITO has to formulate assessment order afresh and in case he again proposes to make additions of more than Rs. 1,00,000 he can send draft to IAC under section 144B. In such circumstances, first draft would stand superseded by second one. We are saying so in order to make provisions workable. We have already made it clear that decision of Delhi High Court in case of Sudhir Sareen does not come in our way in holding as above. 15. We may mention that same question was considered by Delhi Bench ' C ' of Tribunal in Sain Steel Products' case to which reference has been made above and we are in entire agreement with observations made by learned Accountant Member in his concurring order in that case. 16. In result, we uphold order of Commissioner (Appeals) directing ITO to take into consideration revised return filed by assessee on 3-3-1981. 17. departmental appeal is dismissed. *** INCOME TAX OFFICER v. SUPAN INTERNATIONAL (P.) LTD.