JUDGMENT 1. IN the writ petition, M/s. Samadhan Mercantile Private Limited, a private limited company, an assessee under the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short 'the Act') has challenged the order dated 22nd December, 2008 passed under section 143(3)/147 of the Act for the assessment year 2005-2006 by the Income Tax Officer, Ward 7(3), Kolkata, the respondent No. 1 on the ground that the said respondent had brushed aside the fact regarding the existence of the revised return filed in response to notice issued under section 148 of the Act, though such revised return was filed and is a part of the assessment record. Moreover, the said respondent had no competence and/or jurisdiction to put words in the mouth of the representative who appeared on behalf of the company. Assuming the representative had stated that there was no revised return and the original return filed on 31st October, 2005 had to be acted upon, it was still incumbent upon the said respondent to look into and consider the revised return filed in response to the notice. 2. THE matter was moved on 26th March, 2009 when directions were issued for filing of affidavits. An interim order was passed in terms of prayer (d) directing the respondents not to take any coercive measure in furtherance of the order dated 22nd December, 2008, demand notice under section 156 of the Act and the notice under section 271(l)(c) till 29th June, 2009. THE point of maintainability of the writ petition raised by the respondent was kept open. Since affidavit was not filed, by order dated 29th June, 2009 dates were extended. On 27th August, 2009 interim order already passed was extended until further orders. Thereafter, on 19th November, 2009 time to file affidavit-in-opposition was further extended till 30th November, 2009. Today when the matter is taken up for hearing, learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the respondents prays for further extension of time to file affidavit-in-opposition. Considered the prayer. In my view, since in spite of repeated opportunities no affidavit has been filed, prayer for further extension is rejected. 3. PERUSED the order dated 22nd December, 2008 passed under section 143(3)/147 of the Act for the assessment Year 2005-2006. I find that the respondent No. 1 had passed the order under challenge without considering the revised return filed as evident from pages 55 and 56 of the writ petition. 3. PERUSED the order dated 22nd December, 2008 passed under section 143(3)/147 of the Act for the assessment Year 2005-2006. I find that the respondent No. 1 had passed the order under challenge without considering the revised return filed as evident from pages 55 and 56 of the writ petition. It is to be noted, that in paragraph 3 of the order impugned the respondent No. 1 had taken note of the fact that the assessee submitted a return on 27th October, 2008 which is nothing but the revised return. Assuming the representative of the petitioner had submitted that no revised return had been filed, the said respondent ought to have considered the revised return since it was admittedly on record. In my view, the petitioner cannot be made to suffer for the laches, if any, on the part of his, authorised representative. Therefore, the order dated 22nd December, 2008 passed by the respondent No.1 cannot be sustained and is, thus, set aside and quashed. Hence, the writ petition is allowed. The respondent No. 1 is directed to consider the assessment for the assessment year 2005-2006 afresh after taking into consideration the revised return filed. 4. THERE will be no order as to costs. Urgent photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be supplied to the parties on priority basis.