Held allowing the appeal the Court held that  the intimation under section 143(1)(a) having been set aside, no adjustment made under section 143(3) survived. Once the “object”, i. e., the intimation stood removed, its “shadow”, i. e., the consequence could not survive. In view of the surviving limitation to file a revised return, the assessee was within its rights to file the revised return. The assessee’s return had been processed under section 143(1)(a) and the Assessing Officer had disallowed part of the interest payments claimed by the assessee and the Commissioner (Appeals) was of the view that the assessee ought to have been granted opportunity of hearing and had accordingly, set aside the intimation and had remitted the matter to the Assessing Officer to proceed afresh. The correctness of that order was not challenged by the Revenue and hence had attained finality. Consequently, by way of legal effect caused, the original return of the assessee became pending, at the stage of processing. One year time from the end of the assessment year 1995-96 having survived, the assessee had filed its revised return and had not been rejected by the Assessing Officer. Instead of processing the return as revised, the Assessing Officer had initiated scrutiny assessment proceedings, under section 143(3) computing the net loss. The provisions of section 143(1A), would apply and remain confined only to situations covered under section 143(1)(a). Consequently, the assessment proceedings and order passed under section 143(3) were invalid.   That on the facts involving demand of additional tax on simple processing of income, penalty being imposable for concealment of income consequent to scrutiny assessment order under section 143(3) had no application. The processing of a return under section 143(1)(a) was not an assessment order. (AY. 1995-96)