ORDER Huluvadi G. Ramesh, J.— Petitioner has sought for to issue a writ of certiorari to quash the order passed at Annexure 'N' dated 25.03.2010 by the 1st Respondent-Commissioner of Income Tax and also the intimation dated 22.2.2001 issued under Section 143(1)(a) at Annexure 'E' by the 2nd Respondent-Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax and, to issue a writ of mandamus to consider the grievance of the Petitioner by the 1st Respondent on the revision petition filed under Section 264 dated 07.11.2003 vide Annexure F and, to direct refund of taxes deposited at source and, to further direct the Respondents to pay the interest thereon in terms of Section 244A of the Act on the refund amount and, 2. According to the Petitioner, he filed the returns of income based on the TDS certificate issued by the employer for the assessment year 2000-2001. According to him, his employer has deducted the TDS on the alleged value of the perks included in the salary. Though the employer has filed appeals before the Appellate Authority, the Appellate Authority by an order dated 31.7.2002, gave a finding that the value of the shares allotted under the Employees Stock Option Scheme would not result in any perks to the employee until the expiry of the lock in period and there is no obligation on the employer to deduct TDS at source on the alleged perks. However, he filed the return of income and intimation was issued to the Petitioner by the 2nd Respondent as per Section 143(1)(a) of the Income Tax Act accepting the returns filed. Immediately, after receipt of the intimation, pursuant to the decision of the Appellate Tribunal, the Petitioner filed a revision before the 1st Respondent during November 2003 seeking revision of the assessment order and the said revision petition came to be rejected, which the Petitioner is challenging stating that the said order is non-est and refund lies and the effect of the amendment to Section 143(1) of the Act comes into effect only from the subsequent year and not for the assessment year. Accordingly, contending that the revision ought to have been entertained and excess amount ought to have been refunded, he has filed this petition. 3. Heard. 4. It is not in dispute that the returns filed by the Petitioner is for the assessment year 2000-2001 and the TDS certificate is issued by the employer for the said year. Accordingly, contending that the revision ought to have been entertained and excess amount ought to have been refunded, he has filed this petition. 3. Heard. 4. It is not in dispute that the returns filed by the Petitioner is for the assessment year 2000-2001 and the TDS certificate is issued by the employer for the said year. According to the Petitioner's counsel, as per the judgment of this Court in the case of Avasaraja Automation Ltd. vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax and Another, 2004 ITR 163 ,the deletion of explanation to Section 143 of the Act came into effect on 1.6.1999 as such, any amendments in the Act which came into force after the first day of April of the financial year would not apply to the assessment for that year, even if the assessment is actually made after the amendment came into force. As such, the revision is maintainable and the 1st Respondent ought to have entertained the revision and pass an order of refund as there was tax deduction at source by the employer towards the shares allotted treating them as perks. Learned Counsel has also relied upon the decision of this Court in the case of The Commissioner of Income Tax and The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Infosys Technologies Ltd., (2007) 293 ITR 146 KAR to contend that, stock options were not perks as such, the Assessee is not liable to deduct lax on value of shares and the TDS deducted from the salary of the Assessee on such perks remitted to the revenue is refundable. She has also relied upon the decision of this Court reported in the case of S. Thigarajan vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, (2009) 30 DTR (Kar) 277 Accordingly, learned Counsel has sought for allowing the petition directing the 1st Respondent to refund the amount deducted towards perks. 5. Learned Counsel appearing for the Respondent-authority, relying upon the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax, West Bengal Vs. Isthmian Steamship Lines, AIR 1953 SC 439 , contended that it applies to the assessment year unless otherwise stated or implied. 5. Learned Counsel appearing for the Respondent-authority, relying upon the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax, West Bengal Vs. Isthmian Steamship Lines, AIR 1953 SC 439 , contended that it applies to the assessment year unless otherwise stated or implied. The self assessment made by the Petitioner has been accepted by the assessing authority and the amendment or revision of the very assessment for refund of the amount has to be sought before the very assessing authority by filing an application, so that he would consider the same and pass appropriate orders for refund. Directly approaching the 1st Respondent-Commissioner who is not the assessing authority seeking revision of the self assessment made by the Assessee himself to get the benefit of the amendment or any decision, is not maintainable unless it is reconsidered by the assessing authority. 6. Since, the explanation to Sub-Section 5 of Section 143 of the Act has been omitted by Finance Act of 1999 with effect from 1.6.1999, the question is whether such an omission will be taken into consideration on the basis of the assessment year or the financial year? 7. The single bench of this Court has opined that, since explanation to Section 143 has been deleted after the first day of the assessment year of 1999-2000 i.e., with effect from 1.6.1999, it does not take away the vested right of revision for that order. The Apex Court, however, in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax v. Isthmian Steamship Lines has held that, the amendment would be treated to relate to the assessment year and not the accounting year. As is held by the Apex Court, since the very amendment would relate to the assessment year, even the repealing or omission of the explanation as on 1.6.1999 unless it is made specific, has to be normally treated that it is to the assessment year. 8. In the case on hand, although the Petitioner had filed returns for the assessment year 1999-2000, the said assessment was made as per the TDS certificate issued by the employer regarding deduction of income tax at source on the perks. 8. In the case on hand, although the Petitioner had filed returns for the assessment year 1999-2000, the said assessment was made as per the TDS certificate issued by the employer regarding deduction of income tax at source on the perks. Subsequently, pursuant to the challenge made by the employer before the Appellate Tribunal, since the Appellate Tribunal pursuant to the repealing of the amendment to Section 143(5) has opined that the value of the shares allotted would not result in any perks to the employee until the expiry of the lock in period i.e., unless the maturity of the stock, the question of deducting the tax at source would not arise and it would inure to the benefit of the Petitioner, as such, Petitioner has sought for refund of the amount which was so deducted at source. 9. In view of the judgment of the Apex Court that such an amendment relates to the assessment year and not to the financial year, unless it is made clear in such an amendment as to whether it comes into effect for the assessment year or financial year, normally it is to be deemed that such benefit of the amendment is for the assessment year. In this regard, as per Section 143 of the Act, for the refund, Petitioner has to approach the assessing authority by filing revised returns though it is belated, as the time is lost by initiating proceedings in revision under the confusion that a revision lies against the said order. The Petitioner himself is at fault in seeking revision and there is no fault of the Department in accepting such returns filed and the intimation sent. 10. It is for the Petitioner to pursue the assessing authority based on the finding given by the appellate Tribunal, which was pursued by the employer of the Petitioner wherein the appellate Tribunal has come to the conclusion that, there cannot be deduction of lax at source until the expiry of lock in period. As such, the amount so deducted through the employer which was remitted to the revenue of the State has to be refunded to the Petitioner, after hearing on such revised returns to be filed, by condoning the delay. As such, the amount so deducted through the employer which was remitted to the revenue of the State has to be refunded to the Petitioner, after hearing on such revised returns to be filed, by condoning the delay. The prayer of the Petitioner to direct the 1st Respondent to reconsider the returns filed by him or for refund of the amount cannot be granted, since there is no wrong assessing and the revision filed by the Petitioner before the Commissioner itself is not maintainable. 11. Accordingly, extending the liberty to the Petitioner to approach the assessing authority by filing revised returns and, directing the assessment officer of the Respondent-authority to consider the application of the Petitioner for refund of the amount which was deducted at source by the employer and remitted to be revenue in accordance with law, writ petition is disposed of. However, it is made clear, on the application filed by the Petitioner for condoning the delay, it is for the 1st Respondent to condone the delay taking into consideration the factual situation.