JUDGMENT : B.N. Mahapatra, J. - This writ petition has been filed for quashing the following orders : (i) The order of assessment dt. 23rd Dec, 2008 (Annex. 1) passed by opposite party No. 1-Asstt. CIT, Circle-I (1), Bhubaneswar (for short, "AO"): (ii) The order issued under s. 264 of the IT Act dt. 11th March, 2010 (Annex. 1A) passed by the CIT, Bhubaneswar; and (iii) The order dt. 15th Sept., 2010 (Annex. 1B) passed by the CIT(A)-I, Bhubaneswar. The further prayer of the petitioner is for refund of tax collected on the ground that such collection is without authority of law. Petitioner's case in a nutshell is as follows : The Government of India as well as Government of Orissa in their respective policies decided to finance the housing sector and it was conceived that the same shall be done through agencies and instrumentality of the State, both in the Centre as well as the State through non-banking financial companies. In furtherance of such a policy, the State Government through its Housing and Urban Development Department decided to promote and float a public limited company in the name and style of Orissa Rural Housing Development Corporation Ltd. and accordingly the petitioner company was incorporated on 19th Aug., 1994 under the Companies Act, 1956. The authorized share capital was Rs. 50 crores divided into equity share of Rs. 10 each and there was redeemable preference share of Rs. 100 each for Rs. 10 crores whereas share capital was Rs. 48,16,00,000 which was paid entirely by the State of Orissa. 2. The petitioner carries on the business of a non-banking financial institution. To carry on its business, the petitioner borrows and lends money under various schemes, either on its own approval or concurrence from the Government. The petitioner maintains details of account for the purpose of income tax. It commenced its business during the year 1994-95 and follows mercantile system of accounting to recognize income and expenses to compute its total income. It had got its account audited for the financial year ending on 31st March, 1995 and upto 31st March, 2006 and returns of income were filed with the IT Department for those periods. Difficulty of the petitioner arose when the statutory auditors were not appointed in time and its own appointed auditor delayed in completing its audit. 3. The petitioner submitted its return for the asst. yr. Difficulty of the petitioner arose when the statutory auditors were not appointed in time and its own appointed auditor delayed in completing its audit. 3. The petitioner submitted its return for the asst. yr. 2006-07 on 30th Nov., 2006 within the due time wherein it disclosed its total loss at Rs. 1,94,48,311. The AO issued notice (Annex. 3A) to the petitioner on 10th Oct., 2007 under s. 143(2) of the IT Act requiring the petitioner to attend his office on 9th Jan., 2008 either in person or by a representative duly authorized in writing on this behalf or produce or cause to be produced any documents, accounts and any other evidence on which the petitioner may rely in support of the return filed by it. Subsequently, on 3rd Oct., 2008 a notice (Annex. 3B) under s. 142(1) of the IT Act was issued to the petitioner to produce or cause to be produced accounts and documents mentioned in the said notice for the asst. yr. 2006-07. On 8th Dec, 2008, the petitioner filed a petition under Annex. 3C before opposite party No. 1-Asstt. CIT, Circle-1, Bhubaneswar (for short 'AO') for revising its return of income. Learned AO without taking this fact into consideration passed the impugned order dt. 23rd Dec., 2008 (Annex. 1) competing the income at Rs. 22,52,92,540 and demanded Rs. 7,58,33,470 towards tax, surcharge and education cess and also charged interest under s. 234B for Rs. 2,50,25,022, total of which was Rs. 10,08,58,492. 4. Being aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner filed a revision petition on 18th Feb., 2009 before opposite party No. 2-CIT. On 11th Feb., 2009, the petitioner moved a petition before the Addl. CIT, Range-I, Bhubaneswar for grant of stay of the tax demanded till disposal of the case under s. 264 of the IT Act. The Asstt. CIT refused to grant stay by order dt. 5th May, 2009 (Annex. 3/F). Being aggrieved by such order, the petitioner approached the CIT on 27th July, 2009 and the learned CIT disposed of the revision petition by his order under Annex. 1A refusing to interfere with the assessment on the ground that the assessee after filing original return cannot make a fresh claim other than by way of filing a revised return. 3/F). Being aggrieved by such order, the petitioner approached the CIT on 27th July, 2009 and the learned CIT disposed of the revision petition by his order under Annex. 1A refusing to interfere with the assessment on the ground that the assessee after filing original return cannot make a fresh claim other than by way of filing a revised return. The petitioner on receiving the order of the CIT filed first appeal on 26th March, 2010 before the CIT(A), who dismissed the appeal inter alia holding that the delay in filing the appeal is not condonable and that the appeal is not maintainable as the appellant has waived its right to appeal by going for a revision under s. 264 of the Act. The CIT(A) further held that the order of the AO against which an appeal is sought to be filed has since merged with the order passed under s. 264 of the IT Act by the CIT, no appeal before him can lie against the order passed by the learned CIT. Hence, the present writ petition. 5. Mr. B.K. Mahanti, learned senior advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner submitted that learned AO has committed an error by not considering the revised statement of income filed before him on 8th Dec, 2001 while passing the order of assessment. At the time of filing the return, the statutory audit was not completed. Returns were filed on the basis of the provisional accounts and interest on non-performing asset (for short, 'NPA') account was wrongly recognized in contravention with the provisions of National Housing Bank (for short, 'NHB') guidelines and the petitioner-assessee has also claimed expenses in contravention of s. 43D of the IT Act. On the basis of petition dt. 8th Dec, 2001, though the petitioner explained before the learned AO that the National Housing Bank Act (for short, 'NHB' Act) has overriding effect over the IT Act and on a reworking of the figure the loss shown would go upto Rs. 43,63,93,492 the learned AO has not considered the same. Both the learned AO and the CIT are wrong in holding that the petitioner-assessee has no right to claim fresh exemption before the AO after filing the original return other than by way of filing revised return. 43,63,93,492 the learned AO has not considered the same. Both the learned AO and the CIT are wrong in holding that the petitioner-assessee has no right to claim fresh exemption before the AO after filing the original return other than by way of filing revised return. Even if the assessee follows mercantile system of accounting to recognize income and expenses to compute its total income there is no bar for the assessee to revise its return of income by way of filing revised statement of income as the income of NPA account was wrongly recognized in contravention of NHB guidelines and expenses were claimed in contravention of s. 43B of the IT Act. The learned AO should have Issued notice under s. 139(9) to rectify the defect in the return. Notice under s. 143(2) without issue of notice under s. 142(1) was premature. Notice issued under s. 142(1) itself was time barred having served after one year from the date of filing of the return. The statutory audit was over on 6th Dec, 2010 and approval of the CAG has been given on 7th Feb., 2011. Thereafter, the petitioner had submitted a revised return by registered post. The petitioner is subjected to an unjust and undue assessment against which the petitioner has no redressal, and particularly because, the petitioner's business would come to a stand still when it will be forced to pay tax which is not payable under law. 6. Mr. Mohanty further submitted that after disposal of the revision petition by learned CIT, the AO on 17th March, 2009 has collected Rs. 16,47,224 by an attachment from the petitioner's bank account as informed by its bankers, the SBI, Union Bank of India and UCO Bank. Unless there is a direction of this Court, the petitioner would not get the refund of amount collected by attachment. The petitioner has no real income and it is liable to pay back the amount borrowed from HUDCO. 7. Mr. A.K. Mohapatra, learned senior standing counsel appearing on behalf of the IT Department submitted that there is no infirmity or illegality in the orders passed by the AO under Annex. 1, the order passed by the CIT dt. 11th March. 2010 (Annex. 1A) as well as order of the CIT(A) dt. 15th Sept., 2010 (Annex. IB) for the reasons stated in the respective orders. 1, the order passed by the CIT dt. 11th March. 2010 (Annex. 1A) as well as order of the CIT(A) dt. 15th Sept., 2010 (Annex. IB) for the reasons stated in the respective orders. Placing reliance on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Goetze (India) Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, t is submitted that the AO has no power to entertain a fresh claim made by the assessee after filing of the original return other than by filing of a revised return. Supporting the order of the CIT(A), Mr. Mohapatra submitted that the petitioner having invoked the provision of s. 264 of the IT Act, thereafter he has no right to approach the CIT(A) invoking its appellate jurisdiction. Referring to s. 264(4) of the IT Act, he further submitted that the statute in this regard is amply clear and therefore, the CIT(A) is justified to hold that the appeal filed by the petitioner before him is not maintainable. Concluding his argument, Mr. Mohapatra prayed for dismissal of the writ petition. 8. On the rival contentions of the parties, the following questions fall for consideration by this Court: (i) Whether an assessee can revise his return of income by way of filing a revised statement of income after filing original return other than by way of filing revised return as contemplated under s. 139(5) of the IT Act ? (ii) Whether the learned AO as well as the CIT is justified in holding that the petitioner-assessee has no right to claim fresh exemption before the learned AO after filing of the original return other than by way of filing revised return ? (iii) Whether an assessee who follows mercantile system of accounting and furnishes the return of income on the basis of accrued interest income can revise its return of income by way of filing a revised statement of income on the ground that the interest on NPA account was wrongly recognized in contravention of NHB guidelines and expenses were claimed in contravention of s. 43D of the IT Act ? (iv) Whether the NHB Act, 1987 overrides the IT Act, 1961 ? (v) Whether there is any sequence prescribed under the IT Act as to in what manner two notices, i.e., notice under ss. (iv) Whether the NHB Act, 1987 overrides the IT Act, 1961 ? (v) Whether there is any sequence prescribed under the IT Act as to in what manner two notices, i.e., notice under ss. 142(1) and 143(2) of the IT Act are to be issued so far production of documents and/or accounts is concerned ? (vi) Whether the CIT(A) is justified in holding that the appeal filed by the petitioner after rejection of its petition under s. 264 by the CIT is not maintainable under the IT Act ? (vii) Whether any refund can be granted by exercising power under Arts. 226 and 227 of the Constitution when refund does not flow from an order passed under the statute ? 9. Question Nos. (i), (ii) and (iii) being inter-linked, they are dealt with together. 10. The undisputed facts are that the petitioner assessee follows mercantile system of accounting and has filed its return of income for the financial year 2005-06 on 30th Nov., 2006. Subsequently, on 8th Dec, 2008 the petitioner filed a petition before opposite party No. 1-AO with a revised statement of income stating therein that at the time of filing of returns, the statutory audit was not completed. The returns were filed on the basis of the provisional account and interest on NPA was wrongly recognized in contravention of NHB guidelines and it also claimed expenses in contravention of s. 43D of the IT Act. On the basis of the original return filed on 30th Nov., 2006 notice was issued on 10th Oct., 2007 under s. 143(2) of the IT Act. Notice under s. 142(1) dt. 3rd Oct., 2008 was also issued to the petitioner to produce the documents/accounts. Assessment was completed under s. 143(3) on the basis of the original return on 23rd Dec. 2008. The petitioner filed a revised return by registered post on 7th Jan., 2011. 11. It is quite possible and natural that in submitting a return, some bona fide omission or wrong statement may have occurred. In order to obviate this possibility the legislature has made provisions in s. 139(5) enabling an assessee to furnish a revised return. Thus, the assessee has a right to file revised return if he discovers any omission or any wrong statement in the originally filed return. In order to obviate this possibility the legislature has made provisions in s. 139(5) enabling an assessee to furnish a revised return. Thus, the assessee has a right to file revised return if he discovers any omission or any wrong statement in the originally filed return. Such a revised return can be furnished at any time before expiry of one year from the end of the relevant assessment year or the completion of the assessment, whichever is earlier. Thus, the statute provides safeguard to an assessee in case he discovers any omission or wrong statement in his original return to file a revised return. The further requirement is that this omission or wrong statement in the original return must be due to a bonafide inadvertence or mistake on the part of the assessee. 12. There is a distinction between a revised return and a correction in the originally filed return. If an assessee files an application for correcting a return already filed or for making some amendments therein, it would not certainty mean that he has filed a revised return. Such a petition is not recognized under the IT Act. The basis of assessment is the return filed by the assessee. If a revised return is filed under s. 139(5) of the IT Act the assessment can be completed only on the basis of revised return and not otherwise. 13. Where an assessee, following mercantile system of accounting, furnishes a return of income on the basis of accrued income, the filing of a revised statement of income, on the ground that such interest income had not been received during the relevant previous year, is of no avail. In absence of the revised return as provided under s. 139(5), the AO is bound to make assessment on the basis of original return. Further, a change over from mercantile system to cash system is not permissible by filing a revised return much less a revised statement of income. 14. There is no provision under the IT Act to enable an assessee to revise his income by way of filing a revised statement of income as has been done by the petitioner. In the instant case, a revised statement of income was filed on 8th Dec, 2008 before the AO after commencement of assessment proceedings. 14. There is no provision under the IT Act to enable an assessee to revise his income by way of filing a revised statement of income as has been done by the petitioner. In the instant case, a revised statement of income was filed on 8th Dec, 2008 before the AO after commencement of assessment proceedings. If such revised statement of income is accepted, then the very purpose of enacting s. 139(5) under the IT Act for filing revised return shall be frustrated and provision of said section becomes redundant. During the relevant time, as the assessee had maintained the accounts on mercantile basis, it was bound to file the returns on that basis. 15. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Goetze (India) Ltd. (supra), held that the AO has no power to entertain fresh claim made by the assessee after filing of the original return other than by filing of revised return. 16. Law is well-settled that when the statute requires to do certain thing in certain way, the thing must be done in that way or not at all. Other methods or modes of performance are impliedly and necessarily forbidden. The aforesaid settled legal proposition is based on a legal maxim "Expressio unius est exclusion alteris", meaning thereby that if a statute provides for a thing to be done in a particular manner, then it has to be done in that manner and in no other manner and following of other course is not permissible. [See Taylor vs. Taylor (1876) 1 Ch.D. 426; AIR 1936 253 (Privy Council) and Indian Banks' Association, Bombay and Others Vs. Devkala Consultancy Service and Others, 17. Therefore, we are of the view that the learned AO is fully justified in completing the assessment under s. 143(3) of the IT Act on the basis of the original return filed under s. 139(1) without taking into consideration the revised statement filed on 8th Dec, 2008 in absence of the revised return as contemplated under s. 139(5) of the IT Act and the CIT is also justified in confirming the view of the learned AO. 18. Question No. (iv) is as to whether the NHB Act, 1987 overrides the IT Act, 1961 ? Though both the Acts are Central Acts they are occupying different fields. The purposes of enacting both the Acts are different. 18. Question No. (iv) is as to whether the NHB Act, 1987 overrides the IT Act, 1961 ? Though both the Acts are Central Acts they are occupying different fields. The purposes of enacting both the Acts are different. IT Act has been enacted to levy tax on income which is covered under Entry No. 82 of List-I-Union List of Seventh Schedule to the Constitution. The NHB Act, 1987 has been enacted to promote housing finance institutions both at local and regional levels to provide financial and other support to such institutions which are covered under Entry No. 45 of List-I-Union List of Seventh Schedule to the Constitution of India. There is no such provision in the NHB Act that it will override the IT Act. Since the impugned orders are passed under the IT Act, 1961, they are governed by the provisions of IT Act. Therefore, the contention of the petitioner that NHB Act, 1987 overrides the IT Act, 1961 is wholly untenable in law. 19. Question No. (v) is as to whether there is any sequence prescribed under the IT Act as to in what manner two notices, i.e., notice under ss. 142(1) and 143(2) of the IT Act are to be issued so far as production of documents and/or accounts is concerned ? 20. Under s. 142(1) of the IT Act, the AO for the purpose of making assessment may serve on any person who has made a return under s. 139 or in whose case time allowed under s. 139(1) for furnishing return has expired, a notice requiring him on a date therein specified : (i) Where such person has not made a return within the time allowed under s. 139(1) to furnish a return of his income or income of any person in respect of whom he is assessable under the Act in the prescribed form, or (ii) To produce or cause to be produced such accounts or documents as the AO may require or to furnish in writing and verify in the prescribed manner on such points or matter as the AO may require. Thus, as stated above, s. 142(1), inter alia, empowers the AO to issue notice under s. 142(1) for production of accounts and/or documents for the purpose of making assessment. 21. At this juncture, it is necessary to reproduce s. 143(2) of the IT Act : 143. Assessment (1)............ Thus, as stated above, s. 142(1), inter alia, empowers the AO to issue notice under s. 142(1) for production of accounts and/or documents for the purpose of making assessment. 21. At this juncture, it is necessary to reproduce s. 143(2) of the IT Act : 143. Assessment (1)............ (2) Where a return has been furnished under s. 139, or in response to a notice under sub-s. (1) of s. 142, the AO shall,-- (i) where he has reason to believe that any claim of loss, exemption, deduction, allowance or relief made in the return is inadmissible, serve on the assessee a notice specifying particulars of such claim of loss, exemption, deduction, allowance or relief and require him. on a date to be specified therein to produce, or cause to be produced, any evidence or particulars specified therein or on which the assessee may rely, in support of such claim : Provided that no notice under this clause shall be served on the assessee on or after the 1st day of June, 2003; (ii) not withstanding anything contained in cl. (i), if he considers it necessary or expedient to ensure that the assessee has not understated the income or has not computed excessive loss or has not under-paid the tax in any manner, serve on the assessee a notice requiring him, on a date to be specified therein, either to attend his office or to produce, or cause to be produced there, any evidence on which the assessee may rely in support of the return : Provided that no notice under cl. (ii) shall be served on the assessee after the expiry of twelve months from the end of the month in which the return is furnished. 22. Thus, notice issued under s. 143(2) is issued requiring the assessee to produce his accounts, evidence, and particulars on which the assessee may rely in support of his claim made in the return. The return is the basis on which the AO examines the accounts and/or documents, and passes the order of assessment. In the instant case, return of income for the asst. yr. 2006-07 was filed on 30th Nov., 2006 and notice under s. 143(2) was issued on 10th Oct., 2007, which is within the period of limitation, i.e., before expiry of twelve months from the end of the month in which the return was furnished. 23. In the instant case, return of income for the asst. yr. 2006-07 was filed on 30th Nov., 2006 and notice under s. 143(2) was issued on 10th Oct., 2007, which is within the period of limitation, i.e., before expiry of twelve months from the end of the month in which the return was furnished. 23. The purpose of service of notices issued under ss. 142(1) and 143(2) is different. There is no sequence prescribed as to in what manner two notices are to be issued. Therefore, there is nothing to say that the notice under s. 142(1) should precede notice under s. 143(2) so far as production of documents/accounts is concerned. 24. Question No. (vi) is as to whether the CIT(A) is justified in holding that the appeal filed by the petitioner after rejection of his petition under s. 264 by the CIT is not maintainable under the IT Act. 25. Under s. 264 of the IT Act, the CIT is empowered to revise the order passed by an authority subordinate to him on his own motion or an application filed by the assessee for such revision. Sec. 264(4) of the IT Act provides the circumstances where the CIT shall not revise any order under s. 264. For better appreciation, s. 264(4) of the IT Act is reproduced below : 264. Revision of other orders (1).............. (4) The CIT shall not revise any order under this section in the following cases-- (a) where an appeal against the order lies to the Dy. CIT(A) or to the CIT(A) or to the Appellate Tribunal but has not been made and the time within which such appeal may be made has not expired, or, in the case of an appeal to the CIT(A) or to the Appellate Tribunal, the assessee has not waived his right of appeal (underlined, italicised in print, for emphasis) 26. Thus, the assessee can invoke the provisions of s. 264 of the IT Act only after the time for filing the appeal is expired or after waiver of his right of appeal. Sec. 264 of the IT Act is an alternative remedy available to the petitioner-assessee, who does not want to avail remedy by way of appeal. Thus, the assessee can invoke the provisions of s. 264 of the IT Act only after the time for filing the appeal is expired or after waiver of his right of appeal. Sec. 264 of the IT Act is an alternative remedy available to the petitioner-assessee, who does not want to avail remedy by way of appeal. Thus, remedy available under s. 264 of the IT Act is an alternative remedy and not an additional remedy and the assessee is not permitted to pursue both the remedies either simultaneously or one after another. In the instant case, it is only after rejection of the petition under s. 264 by the CIT, the assessee has filed appeal, which right as stated above, by approaching the CIT under s. 264, the petitioner has lost. Apart from the above, once the revisional power vested with the CIT under s. 264 of the IT Act is invoked and the CIT passes the order by exercising his jurisdiction under that section, the order of assessment merges with the order of revision. The order passed by the CIT under s. 264 is also not ah appealable order under s. 246/ 246A of the IT Act. 27. In view of the above, the CIT(A) is justified in not entertaining the appeal filed by the petitioner before him on the ground that the same is not maintainable. 28. Question No. (vii) is as to whether any refund can be granted by exercising power under Arts. 226 and 227 of the Constitution when refund does not flow from an order passed under the statute. 29. The prayer in the present writ petition is for grant of refund. Since we have not quashed the order of assessment dt. 23rd Dec, 2008 (Annex. 1), order dt. 11th March, 2010 passed under s. 264 of the IT Act (Annex. 1A) and first appellate order dt. 15th Sept., 2010 (Annex. 1B) for the reasons stated above, no order granting refund of tax collected against the demand raised in the impugned assessment order can be passed. Moreover, such a prayer in the writ petition is thoroughly misconceived in law because refund must flow from an order passed under the statute. While exercising power under Art. 226 of the Constitution, the High Court is not acting as authority under any statute. 30. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Suganmal Vs. Moreover, such a prayer in the writ petition is thoroughly misconceived in law because refund must flow from an order passed under the statute. While exercising power under Art. 226 of the Constitution, the High Court is not acting as authority under any statute. 30. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Suganmal Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh and Others, held that though the High Courts have power to pass any appropriate order in the exercise of the powers conferred under Art. 226 of the Constitution, such a petition solely praying for the issue of a writ of mandamus directing the State to refund the money is not ordinarily maintainable for the simple reason that a claim for such a refund can always be made in a suit against the authority which had illegally collected the money as a tax. 31. In view of the above, the prayer of the petitioner in this writ petition for grant of refund cannot be granted. For the reasons stated supra, the writ petition is dismissed. No order as to costs. V. gopala Gowda, CJ : I agree Final Result : Dismissed