This is appeal filed by assessee against order of learned CIT(A), dt. 23rd Dec., 1998. Following grounds have been raised in this appeal: "1. That order of AO as upheld by learned CIT(A), Ludhiana, is bad in law and is beyond all cannons of law and justice. That order of AO as upheld by learned CIT(A), Ludhiana, is not considering revised computation of income and relying upon original return in view of facts and circumstances of case is bad in law. That order of AO as upheld by learned CIT(A), Ludhiana is not appreciating settled decisions of law by accepting revised return of income/computation chart more specifically when appellant had specifically shown its intention to revise return and same was revised in order to complete its obligation immediately after adjudication of issue by authorities is bad in law and needs to be set aside." Facts of case in brief are that assessee filed original return of income on 31st Oct., 1994 which was processed under s. 143(1)(a) of IT Act vide order dt. 19th July, 1995. assessee filed revised return on 5th July, 1996. AO vide letter dt. 2nd Aug., 1996 mentioned that return so filed could not be entertained in view of provisions of s. 139(5) of IT Act. assessee preferred appeal to learned CIT(A) who rejected same. Now assessee is in appeal. Learned counsel for assessee submitted that original return should have been replaced by revised return since assessment was not completed by AO and before completion of assessment return was revised on basis of judgment of Hon ble Supreme Court and assessee claimed deduction under s. 80P(2)(a)(iii). Reliance was placed on following case laws: (i) Kumar Jagadish Chandra Sinha vs. CIT (1982) 26 CTR (Cal) 323: (1982) 137 ITR 722 (Cal) (ii) CIT vs. Arun Textile "C" (1991) 98 CTR (Guj) 117: (1991) 192 ITR 700 (Guj) (iii) CWS (India) Ltd. Etc. vs. CIT (1994) 118 CTR (SC) 118: (1994) 208 ITR 649 (SC) (iv) Rajendra Prasad & Co. vs. CIT (1995) 51 TTJ (Pat) 256: (1995) 52 ITD 142 (Pat). In his rival submissions, learned Departmental Representative for Revenue kly supported orders of authorities below and vehemently argued that assessee had not filed revised return within time prescribed in statute. So revised return filed was non est in eyes of law and learned CIT(A) rightly confirmed order of AO for not entertaining revised return. We have heard both parties at length and carefully gone through material available on record. In present case as regards facts of case are concerned, there is no dispute that assessee revised return on 5th July, 1996 but time available was upto 31st March, 1996 since return had been filed on 31st Oct., 1994. assessee had filed revised return under s. 139(5) of IT Act. We have to see as to whether return so filed was within time allowable under s. 139(5) of IT Act. provisions of s. 139(5) read as under: "If any person, having furnished return under sub-s. (1), or in pursuance of notice issued under sub-s. (1) of s. 142, discovers any omission or any wrong statement therein, he may furnish revised return at any time before expiry of one year from end of relevant assessment year or before completion of assessment, whichever is earlier: Provided that where return relates to previous year relevant to assessment year commencing on 1st day of April, 1988 or any earlier assessment year, reference to one year aforesaid shall be construed as reference to two years from end of relevant assessment year." above provisions had been amended w.e.f. 1st April, 1989, so, are applicable to facts of case under consideration. Admittedly revised return filed by assessee was not within time allowable under law because assessee could not file revised return before expiry of one year from end of relevant assessment year or before completion of assessment whichever was earlier. In this case, assessment year ends on 31st March, 1995. As such time available was upto 31st March, 1996. However, revised return had been filed on 5th July, 1996. So, it was beyond time-limit allowable in Act. As regards case laws relied on by learned counsel for assessee are concerned, in our opinion, facts were different in those cases since in case of Kumar Jagadish Chandra Sinha vs. CIT (supra), issue was related to penalty under s. 271(1)(c) of IT Act and it has been held that: "the offence of concealment of income was complete when original voluntary returns were filed and revised returns did not obliterate offence." In case of CIT vs. Arun Textile "C" (supra) issue related to claim of depreciation and it had been held that: "the assessee had not claimed depreciation in revised return and had made clear its intention not to claim same and it was not open to ITO to advert to original return for purpose of allowing deduction which claim was expressly withdrawn by filing revised return." In case of CWS (India) Ltd. Etc. vs. CIT (supra), issue before Hon ble Supreme Court was related to ceiling provided in s. 40(a)(v) of IT Act and allowance under s. 40A(5)(a)(ii). Similarly in case of Rajendra Prasad & Co. vs. CIT (supra), issue before Tribunal, Patna Bench, was as to whether intimation sent by AO under s. 143(1)(a) to assessee constitutes order and hence was beyond revisionary jurisdiction of CIT under s. 263. From above discussion, it would be clear that all cases relied on by From above discussion, it would be clear that all cases relied on by learned counsel for assessee were on different footing. In those cases, it was not issue as to whether revised return filed by assessee beyond time prescribed under s. 139(5) of IT Act, should be considered as valid return or not? So, cases relied on by learned counsel for assessee are distinguishable. Considering totality of facts as discussed hereinabove, we do not see any infirmity in order of learned CIT(A). In result, appeal filed by assessee is dismissed. *** BUDHEWAL CO-OPERATIVE SUGAR MILLS v. JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX