Judgment 1. These are four reference cases in which a consolidated statement of the case has been submitted under Sec.256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter to be referred to as "the Act"), by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Patna Bench, Patna. The following question of law has been referred for the decision of this court: "Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is justified in law in holding that the penalty in each year is restricted to the close of the subsequent previous year ?" 2. The assessee was to file return under Sec.139(1) of the Act by the 30th of June of each year for the assessment years 1961-62, 1962-63, 1963-64 and 1964-65. The assessee did not file the returns as required under Sec.139(1). No notice under Sec.139(2) of the Act was served. The assessee filed the returns under Sec.139(4) on the Act on June 30, 1964, August 30, 1965, September 21, 1965, and December 30, 1965, respectively. The Income-tax Officer initiated proceedings under Sec.271(1)(a) of the Act for the default of the assessee and rejecting the explanation offered by the assessee, imposed penalties of Rs. 24,489, Rs. 22,621, Rs. 16,900 and Rs. 15,600. Copies of the orders of the Income-tax Officer form part of the statement of the case and have been respectively marked annexures A, A-1, A-2 and A-3. 3. The penalties imposed by the Income-tax Officer were confirmed on appeal by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner whose consolidated order is incorporated in annexure 3 to the statement of the case. On appeal to the Tribunal, it was found that the assessee did not file the returns by June 30, under Sec.139(1)of the Act. No notice under Sec.139(2) was served. The assessee filed the returns under Sec.139(4) of the Act, as provided by law, within time. Accordingly, the Tribunal cancelled the orders of the lower authorities imposing the penalties, A copy of the Tribunals consolidated order has been marked annexure C. Thereafter, the following question was referred to the court. "Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of this case, penalty could be imposed where the return had been filed under Sec.139(4) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ?" 4. This court, by its judgment in Taxation Cases Nos. 99 to 102 of 1972 (Addl. "Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of this case, penalty could be imposed where the return had been filed under Sec.139(4) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ?" 4. This court, by its judgment in Taxation Cases Nos. 99 to 102 of 1972 (Addl. CIT V/s. Dongarsidas Biharilal [1979] 116 ITR 897), decided the question in the negative and against the assessee. However, in this courts judgment, it was stated by one of the learned judges who constituted the Bench, which decided those taxation cases, that penalty under Sec.271(1)(a) of the Act is leviable with reference to one single assessment year and that all the steps taken for levy of such penalty, starting with the notice to show cause and culminating in the service of notice of demand, relate to one single assessment year. The expression " assessment year " has been denned in Sec.2(9) of the Act to mean " the period of 12 months commencing on the first day of April every year ". If, therefore, it was held, that penalty under Sec.27l(1)(a) is leviable for the default relating to one assessment year, the default cannot be projected into subsequent assessment year or years. There is no provision under the Act for carrying over the default in filing the return beyond the limits of an assessment year. The cases were thereafter taken up by the Tribunal for recomputation of the quantum of penalty. Relying upon the observations of one of the learned judges, as mentioned above, the Tribunal held the penalty in each year to be restricted to the close of the subsequent previous year and accordingly directed the calculation of the penalty sustainable on the assessee and further directed the Income-tax Officer to refund excess penalty that may have been collected from the assessee. This order of the Tribunal dated August 7, 1979, was incorporated as annexure E to the statement of the case. On these facts, the question of law as already given at the outset had been referred to this court. 5. The point is not a matter of first impression now. The question had come up before a Full Bench of this court in Jamunadas Mannalal V/s. CIT [1985] 152 ITR 261 (Pat) [FB]. On these facts, the question of law as already given at the outset had been referred to this court. 5. The point is not a matter of first impression now. The question had come up before a Full Bench of this court in Jamunadas Mannalal V/s. CIT [1985] 152 ITR 261 (Pat) [FB]. After dealing with the relevant statutory provisions in an exhaustive judgment, this court held as follows (p. 284): " I have given my careful consideration and I have no manner of doubt that the defaults envisaged by Sec.271(1)(a) are not to be classified, as Mr. Jain has been trying to do, by referring to the particular provisions of Sections 139(1), 139(2) or Sec.148. Penalty for a default under Sec.139(1) can be imposed even if a return, under Sec.139(2) or under Sec.139(4), is filed. Similarly, a default caused on account of not responding to the notice under Sec.139(2) or Sec.148 can attract penal consequences. In my view, the period of default reckoned from the due date for filing the return has to be taken to have come to an end with the filing of the return of income, if it is filed before the best judgment assessment under Sec.144 and within the period prescribed under Sec.139(4) and in a case of no return of income filed at all, with the assessment of income as prescribed under Sec.144. In this respect, I am in respectful disagreement with the view taken in the case of Addl. CIT V/s. Bihar Textiles [1975] 100 ITR 253 (Pat) and the view taken by S.P. Sinha J., in Addl. CIT V/s. Dongarsidas Beharilal [1979] 116 ITR 897 (Pat). The view that I have taken must necessarily lead to answering the first question referred to us against the assessee, both in its original form as also as reframed. The penalty on the facts and in the circumstances of the case is leviable under Sec.271(1) even after charging interest under Sec.139. The period of default is not circumscribed by the period of assessment year and it ends either with the filing of the return of income in accordance with law or with the assessment of income in lieu thereof under Sec.144. The provisions as made suffer from no ambiguity and are sufficiently workable keeping in view the ceiling on the quantum of penalty. " 6. The provisions as made suffer from no ambiguity and are sufficiently workable keeping in view the ceiling on the quantum of penalty. " 6. In that view of the matter, the law is settled in so far as this court is concerned and the Tribunal has misdirected itself on the question of law in giving to the Income-tax Officer the direction as has been given. For the foregoing reasons, we have no hesitation in holding that the Tribunal was not justified in law in holding that the penalty in each year was restricted to the close of the subsequent previous year. The question referred to this court is thus answered in the negative, in favour of the Revenue and against the assessee. There shall, however, be no order as to costs. 7. Let a copy of this judgment and order be sent to the Registry of the Tribunal under the seal of this court and the signature of the Registrar of this court.