https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=29191 Article 226(3) was treated as requiring an immediate and direct remedy for the injury complained of; a remote challenge to any future assessment order or a civil suit was not regarded as an adequate alternative where the grievance was against reopening under section 148. The commentary further states that a filed, signed and verified return, even if incomplete or not fully correct, remains a return in law unless it is so defective as to be non-existent; in that situation the Income-tax Officer must proceed under section 143 and complete the assessment, and cannot ignore the return and invoke section 148 merely because particulars were omitted. en-us Thu, 02 Jun 1977 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 11 Mar 2010 13:09:58 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=29191 Article 226(3) was treated as requiring an immediate and direct remedy for the injury complained of; a remote challenge to any future assessment order or a civil suit was not regarded as an adequate alternative where the grievance was against reopening under section 148. The commentary further states that a filed, signed and verified return, even if incomplete or not fully correct, remains a return in law unless it is so defective as to be non-existent; in that situation the Income-tax Officer must proceed under section 143 and complete the assessment, and cannot ignore the return and invoke section 148 merely because particulars were omitted. Case-Laws Income Tax Thu, 02 Jun 1977 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=29191