Judgment 1. Both the cases have been heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment. 2. These references have been made under Sec.27 of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957, at the instance of the Commissioner of the Income-tax for the opinion of this court on the following common question : "Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in law in holding that the amended provision for the computation of quantum of penalty under Sec.18(1)(a) were not applic able to the assessment year 1968-69, the return of which was filed after April 1, 1969?" 3. The assessment year in question is 1968-69. The due date for filing the return was June 30, 1968, but it was actually filed on October 10, 1969, and no explanation for the delay was furnished by the assessee. The penalty for 15 months delay at the rate of 1/2% of the net wealth was imposed upon the assessee by the Wealth-tax Officer as per the amended provisions of the Finance Act, 1969, which came into force from April 1, 1969. 4. The assessee appealed before the Appellate Assistant Commissioner who held that the penalty for the delay In filing the return for this year was leviable, but he directed the Wealth-tax Officer to compute the penalty for 15 months of default with reference to the wealth-tax payable as it was before the amendment and not with reference to the net wealth as had been inserted in Sec.18 of the Wealth-tax Act, with effect from April 1, 1969. 5. Against the order of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner, the assessee came in appeal before the Tribunal for non-deletion of the penalty in toto, whereas the Department also came in appeal before the Tribunal against the order of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner directing the Wealth-tax Officer to calculate the penalty with reference to the wealth-tax payable as it was before the amendment even for the period from April 1, 1969, onwards, when the amendment had already been inserted. The Tribunal held that there was actually a delay of only 13 months as the time for filing the return was extended up to August 31, 1968. The Tribunal held that there was actually a delay of only 13 months as the time for filing the return was extended up to August 31, 1968. The Tribunal further held that the penalty was leviable but it should be calculated on the basis of law applicable in September, 1968, when the default took place and not at the new rate, on the basis of the wealth, which came into force on April 1, 1969. 6. It appears that during the pendency of these taxation cases, the earlier view of the Supreme Court in the case of CWT V/s. Suresh Seth [1981] 129 ITR 328 was overruled by the decision in the case of Smt. Maya Rani Punj V/s. CIT [1986] 157 ITR 330 (SC). It was a case under the Income-tax Act and the question of imposition of penalty under Sec.271(1)(a) of the Act was under consideration. It was observed that the accrual of penalty depends upon the terms of the statute imposing it and that non-filing of the return was treated to be a continuing default--the wrong for which penalty is to be visited commences from the date of default and continues month after month until compliance is made and the default comes to an end. Therefore, the penalty was imposable for the period as long as the default continued to be calculated at the prescribed rate on monthly basis. 7. Mr. B. P. Rajgarhia, appearing for the Revenue, has rightly urged before us that the Tribunal was justified in imposing the penalty for 13 months only and not for 15 months as held by the Wealth-tax Officer and the Appellate Assistant Commissioner. Under such circumstances, we hold that the penalty will be leviable only for 13 months. 8. It was, therefore, rightly submitted that penalty would be computed on different rates applicable during the period of each month in accordance with the rules existing during the said period. 9. In the result, the question referred to this court is answered in favour of the Revenue and against the assessee. Since there is no appearance on behalf of the opposite party, there shall be no order as to costs.