Judgment S. P. Sinha, J. 1. The Patna Bench of the Income Tax Tribunal has referred the undermentioned question under section 256 (1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) : -"whether on the facts and circumstances of this case penalty could be imposed where the return has been filed under section 139 (4) of the income Tax Act, 1961?" 2. The facts of this case are that for the assessment year 1965-66, the assessee was required to file the return of total income on or before 30th June, 1966. However, it filed the return on 12th August, 1966. A show cause notice was issued by the Income Tax Officer under section 271 (1) (a) of the Income tax Act and the assessee explained that it could not file the return under section 139 (1) within time because of illness of the Accountant and the consequent delay in auditing of the books of account. He pleaded that there was sufficient cause for not filing his return within time. This explanation was not accepted and the Income Tax Officer imposed a penalty of Rs.13,728 calculating the period of default to be 13 months. The Appellate Assistant Commissioner calculated the period of default at eleven months. The quantum of penalty was accordingly reduced. On appeal, the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal deleted the entire penalty on the ground that by filing a return of income under section 139 (4) of the Act the default got wiped off. These are all the relevant facts. 3. This case is entirely covered by our judgment in the case of Additional commissioner of Income Tax V/s. M/s Dongarsidas Biharilal (Taxation Case, Nos.99 to 102 of 1972), the judgment which has been pronounced today. The question of law has to be reframed as has been done in the said decision and after reframing the question, for the reasons given in the said decision which covers all the arguments that have been raised by the contending parties in this case, the question is answered in identical terms as has been done in that case. 4. The question of law has to be reframed as has been done in the said decision and after reframing the question, for the reasons given in the said decision which covers all the arguments that have been raised by the contending parties in this case, the question is answered in identical terms as has been done in that case. 4. The question is reframed as under : - "whether the filing of return of income under section 139 (4) of the Act for the assessment year 1965-66 under section 139 (4) of, the Act absolves the assessee of his default in complying with the terms "of section 139 (1) of the Act. If not, whether the penalty levied on the assessee under section 271 (1) (a) of the Act for the said assessment years is legal and valid ?" 5. Our answer is that -Filing of return income under section 139 (4) of the Act did not absolve the assessee of his default in complying with the terms "of section 139 (1) of the Act for the assessment year in question and consequently penalty under section 271 (1) (a) of the Act was leviable on him. 6. There will be no order as to costs. S. Sarwar Ali J.- I agree that the question be answered as in the judgment of my learned brother. There is, however, one aspect on which my view is not identical with that of my learned brother, who is of the opinion that for the purpose of levying penalty for default in filing the return of income the period of default would be an assessment year that is to say 12 months as defined in section 2 (9) of the Act. In my humble view the period of default cannot be so confined. This aspect, however, need not be pursued further, as in my opinion, the reference has to be answered in the manner as indicated by my learned brother. Question answered.