JUDGMENT P. Govindan Nair, J. 1. The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Cochin Bench has referred the following question to this court: "Whether the reassessment made under S.147(a) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 was not a regular assessment and, therefore, the provisions of S.273(b) could not be validly applied to such a case?" 2. The assessee is a registered firm. It filed a return disclosing a total income of Rs. 34,480/- for the assessment year 1966-67. The assessment was completed on 18-11-1966 and the total income was fixed at Rs.37,250/-. The assessee had not filed an estimate of income as required by S.212 (3) of ' the Income Tax Act, 1961 (shortly referred to hereafter as the Act) and had not also paid advance tax. The Income Tax Officer, therefore, initiated penalty proceedings under S.273 (b) of the Act before completing the assessment. 3. Subsequently, the Income Tax Officer took action under S.147 and there was reassessment, which was completed on 11-9-1967 and the total income was fixed at Rs. 65,130/-. Thereafter the Income Tax Officer again initiated proceedings under S.273 (b) on the same ground that the assessee had failed to file an estimate under S.212 (3) of the Act and also defaulted in paying advance tax. The assessee contended that the provisions of S.273 (b) will apply only in the case of "regular assessment" as the section itself says, and that the reassessment completed on 11-9-1967 was not a "regular assessment" and, therefore, no action could have been taken under S.273 (b). This contention was negatived by the Income Tax Officer as well as the Appellate Assistant Commissioner; and in second appeal the Tribunal upheld the view taken by the Income Tax Officer and the Appellate Assistant Commissioner. 4. "Regular Assessment" is defined in S.2(40) of the Act thus: " 'Regular Assessment' means the assessment made under S.143 or S.144." 5. The expression "regular assessment" is used in S.273; the relevant part of that section is in these terms: "If the Income Tax Officer, in the course of any proceedings in connection with the regular assessment, is satisfied that any assessee: (a) ...................................... The expression "regular assessment" is used in S.273; the relevant part of that section is in these terms: "If the Income Tax Officer, in the course of any proceedings in connection with the regular assessment, is satisfied that any assessee: (a) ...................................... (b) has without reasonable cause failed to furnish an estimate of the advance tax payable by him in accordance with the provisions of sub-s.(3) of S.212, he may direct that such person shall, in addition to the amount of tax, if any, payable by him, pay by way of penalty a sum: (i) ...................................... (ii) which, in the case referred to in Clause (b) shall not be less than ten per cent, but shall not exceed one and a half times the amount on which interest is payable under S.217". 6. S.147 (corresponding to S.34 of the Indian Income Tax Act, 1922) provides that: "if the Income Tax Officer has reason to believe that, by reason of the omission or failure on the part of an assessee to make a return under S.139 for any assessment year to the Income Tax Officer or to disclose fully and truly all material facts necessary for his assessment for that year, income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment for that year, or notwithstanding that there has been no omission or failure as mentioned in Clause (a) on the part of the assessee, the Income Tax Officer has in consequence of information in his possession reason to believe that income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment for any assessment year, he may, subject to the provisions of S.148 to 153 assess or reassess such income or recompute the loss, or the depreciation allowance as the case may be, for the assessment year concerned." 7. S.148 enjoins, that before making the assessment, reassessment or recomputation under S.147, the Income Tax Officer shall serve on the assessee a notice containing all or any of the requirements which may be included in a notice under sub-s.(2) of S.139. On such notice being issued, the section further states, the provisions of the Act shall, as far as may be, apply accordingly as if the notice were a notice issued under that sub-section. 8. S.153 (2) also speaks of an order of assessment, reassessment or recomputation under S.147. 9. On such notice being issued, the section further states, the provisions of the Act shall, as far as may be, apply accordingly as if the notice were a notice issued under that sub-section. 8. S.153 (2) also speaks of an order of assessment, reassessment or recomputation under S.147. 9. The Explanation to S.271 specifically refers to income assessed under S.143, 144 or 147; and S.264 provides for appeals from the various orders mentioned therein. Orders of assessment under S.143 or 144 fall under Clause (c) of that section, and Clause (c) separately provides for an order of assessment, reassessment or recomputation under S.147 or S.150. 10. A notice issued under S.148, which may include the requirements under sub-s.(2) of S.139, is really not a notice under S.139, because S.148 itself states that the provisions of the Act will apply as if the notice issued was under sub-s.(2) of S.139. So the assessment that follows cannot strictly be said to be an assessment under S.143 of the Act. Apart from this, S.147, 148, 153, 271 and 246 specifically refer to assessment under S.147. Assessments made after resort to the provisions in S.147 appear under the scheme of the Act to be assessments under S.147 and therefore not assessments under S.143. If this be so, such assessments are "regular assessment", because the definition of "regular assessment" in S.2(40) specifically states that "regular assessment" are those made under S.143 or 144. When an expression is defined in the Act and when that expression again occurs in that statute, it is axiomatic that the meaning of the definition must be given to that expression wherever it occurs in the Act. So it seems to us to be evident that the expression "regular assessment" in S.273 can only mean assessments made under S.143 or 144. In this case the section S.273 cannot apply to the reassessment that has been made on 11-9-1967 which was under S.147. 11. We are not aided in coming to the above conclusion by any specific decision, which has considered the above provisions in the Act. Our attention has been drawn to a decision of the Madras High Court in Natarajan Chettiar v. Income Tax Officer, Karaikudi (42 ITR 29) and a later decision of the same High Court in Gopalaswami Mudaliar v. Income Tax Officer, Coimbatore (49 ITR 322). Our attention has been drawn to a decision of the Madras High Court in Natarajan Chettiar v. Income Tax Officer, Karaikudi (42 ITR 29) and a later decision of the same High Court in Gopalaswami Mudaliar v. Income Tax Officer, Coimbatore (49 ITR 322). In both these cases the section that was considered was S.18A(6) of the Indian Income Tax Act, 1922. In the former decision the view taken was: that "regular assessment" mentioned in S.18A(6) will refer only to assessment made without resort to S.34 of that Act. This view appears to have been practically dissented from in the decision in 49 ITR 322 and a distinction has been sought to be drawn between cases where there has been a previous assessment and in cases in which there had been no previous assessments. The 49 ITR 322 decision related to a case where there had not been any previous assessment and it was held therein that interest can be charged under S.18A(6). In the later decision it was suggested that when there had been no previous assessment, the assessment made by resort to S.34 is a regular assessment and that, therefore, S.18A(6) will apply to such assessment; but that Section may not apply to a case where there had been previous assessment, before action was taken under S.34 of the Act. It is not for us to consider whether any such distinction can be drawn on the basis of the provisions of the Indian Income Tax Act, 1922, nor are we called upon to consider the correctness of the view taken in 42 ITR 29. 12. These two decisions have been referred to by Kanga in the Law and Practice of Income Tax, 6th Edn Vol. 1, page 67 without any critical comment. Sundaram in his commentary to the same Act (Law of Income Tax in India) 10th Edn. Vol. 1, page, suggests that in view of the definition in S.2(40) of the Act, the assessment after resort to the provision in S.147 of the Act may not be a regular assessment under S.143 or 144. 13. We are of the view that considering the specific reference made in the various sections of the Act including S.148, 'assessment under S.147' and the definition in S.2(40) of the Act, an assessment under S.147, that is, assessment, reassessment or recomputation made after resort to S.147 would not be a "regular assessment". 13. We are of the view that considering the specific reference made in the various sections of the Act including S.148, 'assessment under S.147' and the definition in S.2(40) of the Act, an assessment under S.147, that is, assessment, reassessment or recomputation made after resort to S.147 would not be a "regular assessment". 14. We, therefore, answer the question referred to us in the negative, that is, in favour of the assessee and against the department. We direct the parties to bear their respective costs. 15. We wish to make it clear that this answer to the question does not and cannot affect any proceedings initiated under S.273(b) of the, Act on the basis of the assessment made on 18-11-1966. 16. A copy of the judgment, under the seal of this court and signature of the Registrar, will be sent to the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Cochin Bench.