H.S. AHLUWALIA, J.M.: very ticklish issue is involved in this appeal. On 22nd May 1968, assessee filed return of his income at Rs. 21,172. This was neither in prescribed form nor was it verified by assessee underneath verification. This return was accepted by ITO under s. 143(1) of IT Act, 1961 and assessment was made accordingly. On 10th January, 1969, assessee filed another return declaring income of Rs. 71,944. Pending this return, on 7th April, 1969 ITO served notice to assessee under s. 148 on 10th April, 1969. Vide his letter dt. 19th May, 1969, assessee requested for vacating said notice or, in alternative, he pleaded that return filed by him on 10th January 1969 be considered as having been filed in response to said notice. On 28th February, 1973, assessee filed another return declaring income of Rs. 69,180. Ultimately, assessment was made under s. 147/143(3) on 21st March, 1973. Meanwhile, assessee also put in application for cancellation of order of assessment dated 23rd May, 1968, which was rejected by CIT on 28th March, 1969 on ground that no prejudice had been caused to assessee by assessment under s. 143(1). assessee also put in application under s. 154 for cancellation of this assessment order on 22nd January, 1969 This application was rejected by ITO on 16th August, 1974. On 5th February, 1975, AAC accepted appeal of assessee against order of ITO rejecting application for cancellation of assessment and that order was upheld by Tribunal in I.T.A. No. 79/75-76 dt. 19th February, 1976. Department went in reference in IT Ref. No. 2 of 1977. Tribunal s order was upheld by High Court with following observations: " To sum up, return which is not verified does not conform to salient requisites of return as required by sections 139-140 of Act and rule 12 of Rules, such is invalid return and no assessment can be framed on basis of such return. We answer question referred to us in affirmative, i.e., in favour of assessee and against revenue." present application was filed by assessee under s. 154 on 21st p r i l , 1975 seeking amendment of this assessment order under ss. 147(a)/143(3). application was initially rejected by ITO on 30th August, 1976 and assessee went in appeal. Ultimately by its order dt. 16th December, 1978, Tribunal directed ITO to consider points raised by assessee and pass speaking order. following mistakes in original assessment order were pointed out in this application: "That notice under s. 148 for asst. yr. 1968-69 was issued by ITO o n 7th April, 1969 while return of income filed by me under s. 139(4) for same assessment year was pending with you as indisposed, having been filed by me on 10th January, 1969. It is very obvious that issue of notice by you under s. 148 in above circumstances is mistake apparent from record. I may point out that no valid return of income had ever been furnished by me prior to furnishing of above referred return on 10th January, 1969. This return, therefore, was clearly return filed under s. 139(4) and, as stated above, was pending on date of issue of notice under s. 149. I may also point out that invalid assessment was made on 23rd May, 1968 on basis of alleged so-called return which was in fact or in law no return at all. I had moved application under s. 154 to cancel same as far back as on 22nd January, 1969. ITO for reasons best known to him, did not dispose of this application in spite of repeated requests and reminders till 16th August, 1974 when he rejected and learned AAC vide his order dated 5th February, 1975 in Appeal No. 9-C/74-75/Abohar, upheld my contention and has held that there was no vlaid return filed by me on 22nd May, 1968. It is, therefore, now settled beyond any doubt whatsoever, that first return was filed by me on 10th January, 1969. I may point out that as soon as I received your aforesaid notice dated 7th April, 1969, I have requested you by my letter dated 19th May, 1969 that 'the assessee above named had already filed his income-tax return for asst. yr. 1968-69 on 10th January, 1969 and as such above notice may kindly be vacated . Instead of acceding this request, ITO completed assessment in pursuance of this invalid notice." After detailed discussion, ultimately, ITO was of opinion that notice unders. 148 could be challenged only in appeal and not under s. 154. Moreover, application under s. 154 was barred by time as it could be filed only within four years of issue of notice under s. 148. Sec. 153(b) clearly laid down that in case where provisions of s. 27(1)(c) were applicable, time-limit would stand extended upto eight years from end of assessment year in which return had been filed instead of four years. In present case, on date of framing assessment, there was difference of about Rs. 50,000 between previously assessed income and initially returned income. assessee had already moved CIT under s. 271(4A) and thus impliedly agreed that provisions of s. 271(1)(c) were applicable to his case. It was only to avoid consequence that he alleged that assessment was barred under s. 148. According of ITO, since all these points were debatable, there was no case for rectification. He, therefore, rejected application. On Appeal, AAC was of opinion that assessment order dated 21st March, 1973 was barred by limitation as laid down under provisions of s. 153(1)(a)(ii) and that assessee had right to get assessment cancelled under provisions of s. 154 on footing that assessment order individually passed beyond prescribed period of limitation was mistake apparent from records. He, therefore, annulled assessment. Revenue has come up in second appeal before Tribunal. We have heard representatives of parties at length in this appeal. main points urged on behalf of Revenue were that at time present assessment was made, i.e., 21st March, 1973, original assessment order dt. 23rd May, 1968 was valid and since this assessment had been framed at income of Rs. 21,172 and assessee s subsequent return itself showed income of Rs. 71,944, it was clear-cut case where ITO was satisfied that assessee s income had escaped assessment for his failure to disclose fully and truly particulars necessary for doing so. In other words, notice under s. 148 was fully valid in law. present assessment having been made in pursuance of this notice, was perfectly in order until and unless first assessment had been cancelled. This was done only on 5th February, 1979 but on that date what had already been done could not be undone. Alternatively, it was argued that assessment was framed in circumstances where there was clear-cut concealment shown on part of assessee and provisions of s. 153 were not applicable to case. Lastly, it was contended that in any case it was highly debatable question and no rectification could be done in such circumstances. For this purpose, reliance was placed upon decision of Supreme Court in case of T.S. Balaram, ITO vs. Volkart Brothers and others (1971) 82 ITR 50 (SC) and Indian Iron & Steel Co. Ltd. vs. STO & Ors. (1973) 32 STC 95 (All). On behalf of assessee, lengthy argume it were addressed. It was first contended that return which was not duly signed and verified according to law was invalid return and assessment made on basis of first return was wholly invalid one. Punjab and Haryana High Court in case of CIT vs. Dr. Krishan Lal Goyal (1984) 43 CTR (P & H) 135: (1984) 148 ITR 283 (P&H) had already held that previous return filed by assessee was not return in eyes of law and ITO s subsequent assessment order was only waste of paper. Next, it was argued that assessee had already submitted return of income on 10th January, 1969 and ITO could not in law issue notice under s. 148 once return was pending before him. For this purpose, reliance was placed upon following authorities. "Y. Narayana Chetty and Another vs. ITO and others (1959) 35 ITR 388 (SC) CIT vs. Ranchoddas Karsondas (1959) 36 ITR 569 (SC) Estate of late A.M.K.M. Karuppan Chettiar vs. CIT (1969) 72 ITR 403 (SC) CIT vs. M.K.K.R. Muthukaruppan Chettiar (1970) 78 ITR 69 (SC) CIT vs. Kurban Hussain Ibrahimji Mithiborwala (1971) 82 ITR 821 (SC) Smt. Sova Sakar and Others vs. ITO 1977 CTR (Cal) 329: (1983) 139 ITR 386 (Cal)" Next. it was contended that plea regarding limitation, which was purely legal plea, could be taken up by assessee in any proceedings and for this purpose, reliance was placed upon Punjab and Haryana High Court decision in case of Vijay Kumar Jain vs. CIT (1975) 99 ITR 349 (P & H). It was also contented that there could be no waiver in respect of plea that assessment once made was beyond limitation and for this purpose, reliance was placed upon following authorities: "Benarsi Silk Palace vs. CIT (1964) 52 ITR 220 (All) Sewalal Daga vs. CIT (1965) 55 ITR 406 (Cal) Kurbanhussein Ibrahimji Mithiborwala vs. CIT (1968) 68 ITR 407 (Guj) Smt. Parbati Devi vs. CIT (1970) 75 ITR 625 (All)." It was further contended that if notice issued by ITO under s. 148 was invalid, then proceedings taken by ITO in pursuance of such notice would naturally be illegal and void. For this purpose, reliance was place upon Supreme Court decision in case of CIT vs. Thayaballimulla Jeevajikapasi (Decd.) (1967) 66 ITR 147 (SC). Lastly, it was contended that mistake is not ordinary word in taxation law. It has special signification. It is not arithmetical or clerical error that comes within its purview. It comprehends errors which are discerned after judicious probe into record from which it is supposed to emanate. It is inherently indefinite in scope and mostly subjective, dividing line being thin and indiscernible. If well-equipped and trained judicial mind will reach different decision after scrutinising record, it will be mistake apparent on record. For this proposition, again number of authorities were cited, namely, "Walchand Nagar Industries Ltd. vs. V.S. Gaitonde ITO, etc. (1962) 44 260 (Mad) T.S. Rajam vs. CED (1968) 69 ITR 342 (Mad) Blue Star Engg. Co. (Bombay) (P) Ltd. vs. WTO, etc. (1975) ITR 651 (Guj) CIT vs. Hari Raj Swarup & Sons (1982) 29 CTR (All) 276: (1982) 138 ITR 462 (All) M.V. Govindaraju Chetty and Others vs. CTO etc. (1968) 22 STC 46 (Mys)." After carefully considering all facts and circumstances of case, we are of opinion that revenue is entitled to succeed. Firstly, at time when ITO had issued notice under s. 148 there was valid assessment under s. 143(1) in existence, so that issue of notice under s. 148 was not wholly bad in law. It was also otherwise not mala fide inasmuch as return declaring income of Rs. 71,944 had been filed by assessee from which prima facie presumption could be drawn by ITO that in earlier assessment, some income of assessee has escaped therefrom. In response to this notice, assessee while he had requested for vacating same but, in alternative he pleaded that return filed by him on 10th January 1969 be considered as return in response to this notice. It needs be pointed out that till then there was no case set up for assessee that return filed by him earlier on 22nd May, 1968 was no return in eyes of law. Therefore, any proceedings taken in pursuance of this return should ordinarily be not interfered with merely because at some stage there had been discovery of some collateral irregularity. This is not all. On 28th February, 1973, assessee filed another return declaring income of Rs. 69,180. Now under s. 153(1)(c) order of assessment can be made after expiry of one year from date of filing of return of revised return under sub-s. (4) or sub-s. (5) of s. 139. For all intents and purposes, return filed by assessee on 28th February, 1973 was revised return within meaning of s. 139(5). only possible argument that can be raised on behalf of assessee was that since original return had been filed by him on 10th January, 1969, it was return under s. 139(4) and it could be revised under s. 139(5) but here again it is highly debatable issue because there is absolutely no reason as to why if assessment can be made upon return under s. 139(4), why any mistake or omission discovered therein cannot be corrected by filing revised return. Moreover, assessee had himself in response to notice under s. 148 stated that his return filed on 10th January, 1969 be treated as return filed in pursuance of this notice. Under s. 148(1), ITO is to issue notice requiring some particulars as may be included in notice under sub-s. (2) of s. 139 and all provisions of Act do, so far as they may, apply accordingly as if it was notice issued under that sub- section. If notice issued by ITO under s. 148 be treated as notice under s. 139(2), which assessee himself wanted ITO to do, there is no reason why return filed by assessee in pursuance to this notice could not be revised. When it was actually revised on 28th February, 1973, it was not open for assessee to agitate that this subsequent return was no return in eyes of law. assessment made within one year on such revised return which otherwise would be barred by law, has been held to be valid assessment in cases reported in Mst. Zulekha Begum (Khatoon) vs. CIT (1981) 129 ITR 560 (Cal) and Kumar Jagdish Chandra Stinha vs. CIT (Cal). At any rate, all these points are highly debatable and when assessee did not chose to file appeal against original assessment, he cannot be allowed to take resources to proceedings under s. 154 because certainly there can be two opinions on every aspect of matter argued before us. fact that proceedings for cancellation of first assessment travelled to High Court itself shows that it was debatable one. Again it took merely two hours for representative of assessee to bring out various mistakes alleged to have been committed by ITO and this all by itself shows that point is highly debatable. This is not all. All authorities to which reference was made at time of hearing before as at Bar pertained to assessment before 1975. Now there is specific provision. Sec. 292B of Act, inserted by Taxation Laws (Amendment) Act, 1975, w.e.f. 1st October., 1975, reads as under: "292B No return of income, assessment, notice, summands, or other proceeding furnished or made or issued or taken or purported to have been furnished or made or issued or taken in pursuance of any of provisions of this Act shall be invalid or shall be deemed to be invalid merely by reason of any mistake, defect or omission in such return of income, assessment, notice, mistake, defect or omission in such return of income, assessment, notice, summons, or other proceedings is in substance and effect in conformity with or according to intent and purpose of this Act." As we have pointed out above, present assessment was made on basis of return filed by assessee himself and was for al practical purposes in substance and effect in conformity with or according to intent and purpose of Act. While, according to strict interpretation of law, assessment may be invalid because of technical mistake, defect, omission or irregularity therein, such irregularity now stands cured by this provisions, which had not been subject-matter of interpretation in any of authorities quoted above. Against assessment, assessee could possibly have not grudge and that is why he did not choose to go in appeal. earlier authorities which laid down that there can be no waiver would cease to have relevance in present case where assessment is for all intents and purpose in substance in conformity with provisions of Act. Only because of assessee s fault in not verifying earlier return which was accepted by ITO, certain developments resulted in making provision of s. 147 technically inapplicable to case. Otherwise, it is probably fittest case where provisions of s. 147 should be invoked because assessee at time of filing his original return of income had failed to disclose fully and truly all material Consequently, present assessment could be made within eight years form end of assessment year in which income was assessable under cl. (b) of s. 143(1). assessment year having ended on 31st March, 1969 present assessment could otherwise be treated to be valid assessment upto 31st March, 1977 and having been made on 21st March, 1973, it would be certainly within limitation under this clause. Thus, considered from whatever angles it may be, present order of I T O refusing to cancel previous assessment order and rejecting assessee s application under s. 154, is fully warranted by facts and circumstance of this case. order of AAC to contrary is, therefore, set aside and that of ITO is restored. In result, appeal is allowed. *** INCOME TAX OFFICER v. DR. KRISHNAN LAL GOEL