This is appeal by assessee. One point of dispute is whether revised return of income filed by appellant was return filed under Amnesty Scheme or not. other points of dispute are with regard to levy of interest under s. 139(8) and s. 215. 2. assessee is registered firm. It did not file return of income as required under s 139(1) of Income-tax Act and there was no response to notice issued under s. 139(2). However, on 27-8-1985, return of income was filed admitting income of Rs. 1,66,413. case was taken up for disposal by Income-tax Officer, A-Ward, Circle II, Hyderabad, and assessment proceedings were in process. On 31-3-1986, assessee filed another return of income titled as "revised return" declaring income of Rs. 2,86,413 in which it disclosed sum of Rs. 1,20,000 from other sources in addition to business income that had been disclosed in original return filed on 27-8-1985. Income-tax Officer did not take into account revised return, because original return was not filed either under s 139(1) or under s 139(2) and, therefore, ignored revised return and proceeded to complete assessment on basis of original return that was initially filed by assessee, after making certain disallowances. 3. Before Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), it was urged by assessee that it had taken recourse to filing return under Amnesty scheme during currency of that scheme even though return was styled as revised return and not superscribed as "under Amensty Scheme". Commissioner noticed that as no letter accompanied revised return filed on 31-3-1986, it cannot be taken as return under Amnesty Scheme and in this view of matter, she dismissed plea of assessee. However, she deleted disallowances made by Income-tax Officer with result that income disclosed in revised return and income finally determined giving effect to appellate order have come to be one and same. 4. Income-tax Officer had levied interest under S. 139(8) and also u n d e r s. 215 to which objection was taken by assessee before Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) but she dismissed pela on ground that levy of interest is not appealable and thus declined to interfere. 5. Sri G Kalyandas, learned Chartered Accountant for assessee; submitted that return filed by assessee on 31-3-1986 could be treated only as return under Amnesty Scheme, because assessee had lost its right to file revised return in view of fact that original return was filed on 27-8-1985, much later than time allowed under s 139(1) or S 139(2). assessee had by inadvertence or ignorance not superscribed return as return under Amnesty scheme and department should not exploit ignorance or inadvertent mistake committed by assessee to its advantage. That return filed on 31-3-1986 by assessee is only return under Amnesty Scheme would be evident from conduct of not only assessee but also conduct of partners of assessee-firm. There are as many as ten partners and all of them had filed returns on 31-3-1986 in counters kept open for that purpose in Income-tax Officer and had paid taxes thereon. These returns included therein not only income disclosed in original returns but also additional incomes. If fate of return as amnesty return is to be decided only by suitable superscription on return as amnesty return, and if assessee failed to superscribe its return as such, department in fairness should have pointed out this omission at time of submission of return at counter itself. In this context, he submitted that Central Board of Direct Taxes Circular No. 14 (XI-35) of 1955 dated 11-4-1955 had specially enjoined on officers of department not to take advantage of assessees but guides them to their rights. Having accepted returns and tax payments of assessee and its partners, it would amount to double standard on part of department to go back on solemn assurances given to public and taxpayers over press, radio and television, about virtues of Amnesty Scheme. In this connection, he took us through various circulars issued by CBDT, chief among them being Circular No. 451 dated 17-2-1986 and clarifications issued by then Chairman of CBDT, Shri M. S. Narayanan, on certain circulars, etc. He thus argued that authorities below ought to have accepted this return as filed under Amnesty Scheme. He further submitted that no interest is chargeable on return filed under Amnesty Scheme, but when interest was levied, assessee could certainly agitate matter in appeals as there is total denial of liability to interest. 6. Sri N. Santhanam, learned departmental representative, submitted that there was absolutely no indication in return filed on 31-3-1986 as to whether it is amensty return or not. On other hand, it was dubbed as revised return and Income-tax Officer was perfectly justified in ignoring this return. Amnesty Scheme is special scheme and character of return cannot be agitated under regular provisions of Income-tax Act. As original return was filed beyond time limit prescribed under s. 139(1), interest was leviable under s. 139(8). There was also liability for levy of interest under s. 215. Therefore, these matters cannot be agitated in appeal and Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) rightly rejected contentions of assessee. 7. Having regard to rival submissions and materials on record, we uphold contention of Sri Kalyandas. assessee is firm consisting of as many as 10 partners. on 31-3-1986, when Amnesty Scheme was in force, firm chose to file return of income styled as "revised return" in which not only income declared in original return, but also additional income under other sources in substantial sum of Rs. 1,20,000 was declared. This is not end of matter. All partners have also likewise filed their returns of income on very same day admitting higher incomes than those declared in their respective original returns. Taxes computed on basis of so-called revised returns were also paid along with returns and these returns were presented at counters for reception of returns on 31-3-1986, last date for receipt of amensty returns. (Sub-sequently this period was extended.) conduct of assessee coupled with conduct of its partners would certainly create very valid presumption in favour of assessee that these returns were only returns intended under Amensty Scheme. No doubt, there turns were not superscribed as amnesty returns, nor any covering letter was enclosed indicating same. This is certainly omission on part of assessee and partners and Sri Kalyandas pleads that it was due to inadvertence or ignorance or both and revenue should not take advantage of ignorance or inadvertence in view of circular of CBDT No. 14 (XI-35) of 1955 dated 11-4-1955. We uphold his contention. circular cited supra provided that officers of department must not take advantage of ignorance of assessee as to his rights. Although responsibility for claiming refunds and reliefs rests with assessees on whom it is imposed by law, officers should draw attention of assesses to any refunds or reliefs to which they are entitled but which they have omitted to claim for some reason or other and freely advise them when approached by them as to their rights and liabilities and as to procedure to be adopted for claiming refunds and reliefs. This position has been approved in decision of Gujarat High Court in CIT v. Ahmedabad Keiser-E-Hind Mills Co. Ltd. [1981] 128 ITR 486. In view of this circular, least that is expected of people dealing with tax returns during currency of Amnesty Scheme was to point out any apparent omission such as non- indication on return as under Amnesty Scheme. This was not done and assessee should not be penalised for its ignorance or inadvertence. 8. From another angle also, we consider this return as return filed under Amnesty Scheme. time for filing revised return was exhausted, because original return itself was filed on 27-8-1985, i.e., much later than time allowed under s. 139(1) or under s. 139(2). In terms of s. 139(5), it is only when return was filed under sub-s. (1) or sub-s. (2) of s. 139, that assessee has got right to furnish revised return at any time before assessment is made if he discovers any omission or any wrong statement in original return. Obviously, time for filing revised return having petered out, why should assessee approach department with return declaring more income than that in original return, unless he was influenced by promises held out to public regarding virtues of Amnesty Scheme? Apart from this, this was not only return that was filed by assessee; all its partners also had likewise filed their respective returns admitting more income and paying more taxes. This leads to irresistible conclusion that assessee had intended return filed on 31-3-1986 only as return under Amnesty Scheme. 9. In Circular No. 451 dated 17-2-1986, Board has clarified that in case where assessments are pending, taxpayer should file revised return before Income-tax Officer along with evidence of payment of taxes, and in respect of completed assessments, he must file fresh return of income including additional income. In reply to question No. 3, it is stated that including additional income. In reply to question No. 3, it is stated that scheme will apply to old assessees also, whose income has escaped assessment for earlier assessment year and whether assessment is completed or pending. In view of these clarifications contained in circular cited supra, it is rather clear that Amnesty Scheme applies to case of assessees whose assessments have been completed. In case of completed assessment, fresh return has to be filed and probably proceedings under s. 147(b) will have to be initiated to make reassessment. In case of assessees whose assessments are pending, in respect of which assessees file "revised returns" under Amnesty Scheme, in terms of reply to question No. 1, it is "revised return" that has to be taken into account provided evidence of payment of tax was filed before Income-tax Officer. So, under policy of Government, it is "revised return" which assessee had filed, that should have been acted upon for purpose of assessment and Income-tax Officer erred in having proceeded on original return. 10. It has also been clarified that under Amnesty Scheme, Income- tax Officers are not to initiate penalty proceedings but be liberal in waiver of interest. Thus, benefit of Amnesty Scheme would apply in all cases where assessment is completed or pending, and also to cases where concealment has not been unearthed by department. Taking into account totality of clarifications issued under Amensty Scheme, we have to hold that return filed by assessee on 31-3-1986 was valid return under Amnesty Scheme and it is only this return which should have been acted upon. 11. Shri Santhanam objects that these schemes are outside Income- tax Act, brought into force by policy decisions of government and, therefore, assessee cannot seek any remedy before appellate authorities. We are unable to uphold his contention. Though return was filed under Amnesty Scheme, assessment process had to be only under provisions of Income-tax Act and once assessment was made under s. 143, assessee has got all rights to object to nature of assessment, status and also quantum assessed. "Any order of asessment" as mentioned in s. 246(1) (c) would order in regard to nature of return also. Besides, circulars issued by CBDT, though not binding on Courts, are binding on tax officers and Honourable Andhra Pradesh High Court, in CIT v. T. V. Ramanaiah & Sons [1986] 157 ITR 300 has held (as per head notes): "Wherever instructions given by Central Board of Direct Taxes to relieve hardship are issued in exercise of powers vested in Central Board of Direct Taxes under Section 119 of Act, it is certainly open to this court to compel Income-tax Officer to follow instructions of central Board of Direct Taxes. This is not to say that this court is bound by instructions of central Board of Direct Taxes. All that is required to be said is that, so far as officials of Income-tax department are concerned, it is not open to them to say that they would not follow instructions of central Board of Direct Taxes and carry matters in appeals and references." 12. Regarding levy of interest under s. 139(8) and s. 215, we notice that liability of assessee even under Amnesty Scheme is fastened on assessee. In Circular No. 451 dated 17-2-1986, in reply to question No. 5, it has been stated that "Income-tax Officers have been instructed not to initiate penalty proceedings and be liberal in waiver of interest in such cases. question of waiver by Commissioner of Income-tax does not arise. Income-tax Officers are, however, being instructed to finalise waiver proceedings by 30-4-1986. "Therefore, we cannot entertain pela of assessee for vacation of interest levied by Income-tax Officer under s. 139(8) and s. 215. Since character of return is determined as that of return under Amnesty Scheme, assessee is free to approach Income-tax Officer for waiver of interest. 13. In result, appeal is partly allowed. *** RAWOOF ENTERPRISES v. INCOME TAX OFFICER