Admittedly, the assessee filed the revised return on 24.5.1999 well before the period stipulated under Section 139(5) of the Act. This has not been disputed by the Assessing Officer or the Appellate Authority or the Tribunal. However, after taking up the said revised return for scrutiny, the Assessing Officer, while passing the order under Section 143(3) of the Act, rejected the assessee's claim, which, in our considered view, was at the very threshold. 10. We say so because of the fact that if, in the opinion of the Assessing Officer, the return was defective, then the procedure contemplated under Sub-Section (9) of Section 139 of the Act ought to have been followed. This provision enables the Assessing Officer to intimate the defect to the assessee and give an opportunity to rectify the defect within a period of 15 days from the date of such intimation or within such period, which, on an application made in this behalf, the Assessing Officer, may, in his discretion, allow and if the defect is not rectified within the said period of fifteen days or as thecasemay be, the further period so allowed, then, notwithstanding anything contained in any other provision of this Act, the return shall be treated as an invalid return and the provisions of this Act shall apply as if the assessee had failed to furnish the return. The Proviso states that where the assessee rectifies the defect after the expiry of the said period of fifteen days or the further period allowed, but before the assessment is made, the Assessing Officer may condone the delay and treat the return as a valid return. 11. Thus, in our considered view, Sub-Section (9) of Section 139 of the Act is a beneficial provision to the assessee, which provides them an opportunity to rectify the defects. Since the intention being that the assessment proceedings are an outcome of dialogue and discussion, the Assessing Officer is entitled to clarify all issues by issuing notice to the assessee and calling upon them to produce documents and explain their books of accounts, etc. Unfortunately, in the instantcase, such procedure was not adopted when the revised return was rejected at the very threshold, which, in our considered view, ought not to have been done. 12. For the above reasons, on the peculiar facts and circumstances of thecase, we find that the assessee had not been given an opportunity as contemplated under Sub-Section (9) of Section 139 of the Act and therefore, we deem it proper to remand the matter to the Assessing Officer to redo the assessment after giving an opportunity to the assessee in terms of Section 139(5) of the Act to rectify the defects, which have been pointed out by the Assessing Officer in the assessment order. 13. The learned Senior Standing Counsel for the Revenue points out that it is not clear as to whether the bad debts, which were sought to be written off by the assessee, were, in fact, written off in the subsequent year. 14. This issue can also be considered by the Assessing Officer while taking up the assessment afresh in terms of the above direction. 15. In the light of the above, the above taxcaseappeal is allowed, the substantial question of law is answered in favour of the assessee and the matter is remanded to the Assessing Officer to redo the assessment after giving an opportunity to the assessee to rectify the defects in the revised returns dated 24.5.1999. No costs.