ORDER Per Shri T. N. C. Rangarajan, Judicial Member - This appeal by the revenue is directed against the order of the AAC granting refund of advance tax paid by the assessee. 2. The admitted facts are as follows. The assessee is a firm. For the assessment year 1980-81, corresponding to the previous year ended 31-3- 1980, the assessee had paid advance tax of Rs. 11,000. The last day for finding a return for the assessment year 1980-81 was 31-3-1983 under section 139(4) which provides that the return may be furnished before the end of two years from the end of the assessment year. However, the assessee filed as return only on 16-5-1983 showing a total income of Rs. 2,990 which was below the maximum amount not liable to tax. Thereupon the ITO issued a notice u/s 148 on 19-9-1983 in response to which the assessee intimated to the ITO that the return filed earlier could be treated as a return in response to the notice u/s 148. Yet the Income- tax Officer passed the following order :- "The return of income for the assessment hear 1980-81 has been filed by you on 16-5-1983. The income returned is Rs. 2,900. As the return of income has been filed beyond the time limit prescribed for completion of assessment u/s 153(1) (iii) and also as the assessment will result in refund the assessment proceedings for this year cannot be regularised u/s 148. In the circumstances I am to inform you that the return of income filed by you from the year 1980-81 on 16-5-1983 has been lodged by me as superfluous." 3. The assessee appealed to the AAC and contended that since the returns were filed in response to the notice u/s 148, the assessment should be completed and the amount paid refunded. The AAC observed as follows :- "I have considered the submissions and I agree with the representative that once a notice u/s 148 has been issued for a particular year, the ITO agrees that some income has escaped assessment. If the return has been filed prior to the issued of notice u/s 148, the appellant may request the ITO that the return filed earlier may be treated as the return is field in response to notice u/s 148, the assessment could validly be completed. If the return has been filed prior to the issued of notice u/s 148, the appellant may request the ITO that the return filed earlier may be treated as the return is field in response to notice u/s 148, the assessment could validly be completed. Merely because it is resulting in refund, the ITO cannot ignore this return altogether and I am of the opinion that the ITO should complete the assessment as per law and issue the refund, if any, due to the appellant." He thus allowed the appeal. 4. Before us the revenue has taken exception to this order and it was contended that the ITO was not bound to make an assessment after issuing notice u/s 148 if he finds that no income had escaped assessment. Reliance was placed on the decisions in Kevaldas Ranchhodas v. CIT [1968] 68 ITR 842 (Bom.) and Anglo-French Textile Co. Ltd. v. CIT [1950] 18 ITR 906 (Mad.) to contend that the provisions of section 148 were only for the benefit of the revenue and not for the assessee. It was also contended that the appeal was not maintainable because there was no order passed by the Income-tax Officer as he had only lodged the return. On the other hand, it was contended on behalf of the assessee that the advance tax paid could not be retained by the revenue without any authority of law and reliance was placed on the decision in the case of Deep Chand Jain v. ITO [1983] 15 Taxman 522 (Punj. & Har.). 5. On a consideration of the rival submissions, we find it unnecessary to interfere with the order of the AAC. No doubt, the time for making assessment is two years from the end of the assessment year u/s 153(1) (a) (iii) which is the same period for filing the return u/s 139(4) (b) (iii). Hence the return voluntarily filed by the assessee on 16-5-1983 after the last date expired on 31-3-1983 could not have been processed in the normal course. Again when the notice u/s 148 was issued it is for bringing to tax income chargeable to tax which has escaped assessment by reason of failure to make a return. Hence the return voluntarily filed by the assessee on 16-5-1983 after the last date expired on 31-3-1983 could not have been processed in the normal course. Again when the notice u/s 148 was issued it is for bringing to tax income chargeable to tax which has escaped assessment by reason of failure to make a return. While in the present case there was a failure to make the return, there was no escapement of income chargeable to tax since admittedly the income returned was below the maximum amount not liable to tax. Prima facie therefore, the revenue appears to be correct in taking the plea that an assessment could not be directed to be made u/s 148. In the situation, where the income is below the maximum amount not liable to tax and tax has been paid by the assessee, perhaps the assessee was required to file an application for refund. Again the period prescribed for such an application is two years from the last day of the assessment year under section 239(2) which tallies with the time prescribed for filing the return and also for making the assessment. It would appear, therefore, that the proper course for the assessee would have been to file an application for refund within the prescribed time but that he has filed an application in the form of a return slightly beyond the period of limitation. It cannot be gainsaid that no tax should be levied or collected except by authority of law and consequently the revenue will not be justified in retaining the advance tax paid when it is clear that there was no tax due from the assessee. [See Deep Chand Jains case (supra)]. Thus while the revenue may be right in claiming that the ACC should not have directed that an assessment should be completed, it is not right in claiming that the advance tax paid will be retained without the authority of law. It only comes to the question of denying the refund on the ground that the application for refund is not in the prescribed form and has not been made within the time prescribed. There are instructions of the CBDT to the Income-tax Officer to admit belated refund claims. The administrative instructions given for the guidance of the ITOs is also significant. There are instructions of the CBDT to the Income-tax Officer to admit belated refund claims. The administrative instructions given for the guidance of the ITOs is also significant. In particular para (3) of circular No. 14(XL-35) dated 11-4-1955 bears repetition :- "(3) Officers of the Department must not take advantage of ignorance of an assessee as to his rights. It is one of their duties to assist a taxpayer in every reasonable way, particularly in the matter of claiming and securing reliefs and in this regard the officers should take the initiative in guiding a taxpayer where proceedings or other particulars before them indicate that some refund or relief is due to him. This attitude would, in long run, benefit the department for it would inspire confidence in him that he may be sure of getting a square deal from the department. Although, therefore, the responsibility for claiming refunds and reliefs rests with assessees on whom it is imposed by law, officers should- (a) draw their attention to any refunds or reliefs to which they appear to be clearly entitled but which they have omitted to claimed for some reason or other, (b) freely advise them when approached by them as to their rights and liabilities and as to the procedure to be adopted for claiming refunds and reliefs." The circular ends by stating, "The purpose of this circular is merely to emphasise that we should not take advantage of an assessees ignorance to collect more tax out of his than is legitimately due from him." The claim of the assessee could not also be rejected on the technical ground that the application was not made in the prescribed form but was made by filing a return as such. In these circumstances, we have to read the order of the AAC as a direction to entertain a belated application for refund and return the amount which cannot be retained as lawfully assessable tax. When an order is just on merits and does not lead to any miscarriage of justice, it should not be over-turned only on technical grounds. One should think that in the light of the just effect of the order and the administrative instructions given to the Income-tax Officers, this appeal ought not to have been filed at all. We therefore decline to interfere with the order of the ACC. The appeal is dismissed.