Judgment :- This is an O.P. filed by an assessee under the Kerala Agricultural Income-tax Act, 1950 (hereinafter called the "act" ) to quash Ext. P4 order dated 9-3-1988 passed under S.17A(3) and to quash the order passed in revision Ext. P6 confirming Ext. P4 order. 2. The short facts relevant for decision of this O.P. are as follows: The petitioner is a registered company and is an assessee under the Act. For the assessment year 1987-88 it had to file a return on or before 1-6-1987, as per S.17(1) of the Act. On 28-5-1987 it has applied under S.65 for extension of time for filing the return up to 15-9-1987. No communication was received for Ext. P1 application filed under S.65 and the assessee was under the impression that its request was granted. Then on 22-8-1987 a return was filed paying the admitted tax of Rs. 7,11,669/-on the basis of self-assessment. The petitioner was surprised when he received Ext. P2 notice dated 22-12-1987 asking it to explain why penalty should not be levied under S.17A(3) for the delay in payment of the tax and failure to file the return on 1-6-1987. Elaborate objections under Ext. P3 were filed on 28-12-1987. without a proper consideration of Ext. P3 objections, and the correct legal position, Ext. P4 order was passed levying a penalty of Rs. 42,700/-. This order was passed on 9-3-1988. Immediately Ext. P4 revision was filed on 22-3-1988 before the Commissioner, Board of Revenue. The Commissioner as per his order Ext. P6 rejected the revision and confirmed the order in Ext P4. Hence this O.P. is filed to quash Exts. P4 and P6 order confirming Ext. P4. 3. It is contended on behalf of the petitioner that under the scheme of the Act there is no power for levying penalty under S.17A(3), when in fact the admitted tax is paid before the return is filed and when proof of payment of the admitted tax is filed along with the return. It is of no consequence as far as S.17A(3) is concerned, whether the return was filed on the due date or on a date subsequent to the due date. S.17A(3) is of limited application and it only deals with cases of non-payment of admitted tax, and delayed and partial payment of admitted tax. It is of no consequence as far as S.17A(3) is concerned, whether the return was filed on the due date or on a date subsequent to the due date. S.17A(3) is of limited application and it only deals with cases of non-payment of admitted tax, and delayed and partial payment of admitted tax. Shri Premjit Nagendran arguing the case very ably for the petitioner, relied upon the scheme of the Act and the relevant Sections and a few decisions under the Income-tax Act to substantiate his contentions. 4. On behalf of the State, the Government Pleader contends that S.17A is specifically brought into existence to introduce the system of advance payment of admitted tax. That provision cannot be utilised for the purpose of filing the return late, and thus defeat the object of introducing S.17A. The Government Pleader contends that under S.17A(3) it is open to the revenue to impose a penalty even in cases where the return is filed late and the admitted tax is paid. 5. The crucial question that arises for consideration in this case is whether in exercise of powers under S.17A(3) it is open to the revenue to levy a penalty when the petitioner pays the admitted tax on the basis of self-assessment, and produces proof of the same along with the return when the return is filed after the due date, namely, 1.6 of the concerned year. 6. The point: To understand the contentions of the respective parties, it would be necessary to examine the scheme of the Act and the significance of the different provisions. It should be remembered that the Act was first brought into force in 1950. Subsequently, it underwent several amendments. Originally S.17A was not on the statute book. It was introduced by way of Amendment Act 17/80 with effect from 1-4-1980. S.17A has been introduced for the purpose of introducing the system of paying admitted tax along with the return: see the Statement of Objects and Reasons for Act 17/80 printed at page 164 of the Book "The Agricultural Income-tax Act, 1950" by N. Sugathan and S. Soman, 1985 Edn. Prior to this system being introduced into the Act there was no provision whereby a penalty of 2% on the admitted tax could be imposed in cases of filing a return late. Prior to this system being introduced into the Act there was no provision whereby a penalty of 2% on the admitted tax could be imposed in cases of filing a return late. We have to examine the provisions of the Act in the light of the change brought in with effect from 1-4-1980. 7. If we examine the scheme of the Act we find that under S.17(1) an assessee has the liability to file a return on or before the 1st June for the agricultural income exceeds the maximum amount which is not chargeable to agricultural income-tax. Under S.17(2) the Agricultural Income-tax Officer is empowered to issue a notice to a person if the Agricultural Income-tax Officer is of the opinion that the person's income renders him liable to file a return. Under S.17(3) if a person-has not furnished a return within the time allowed by S.17(1) or within the time granted under the notice issued under S.17(2) or having furnished the return discovers any omission or wrong statement then he may furnish a return or a revised return at any time before the assessment is made. Thus it is clear that the primary obligation is on the assessee to file a return on or before the 1st of June. Under S.17(3), in cases where he fails to furnish a return, or when he discovers a mistake or omission, he can furnish a return or a revised return at any time before the assessment is made. The language of S.17(3) clearly indicates that the Act contemplates filing of returns late as well as filing of revised returns. What exactly is the action to be taken in such cases is provided for in the other sections. For instance, S.65 empowers the Agricultural Income-tax Officer to extend time for filing a return on an application by an assessee. In the present case the assessee filed the application, Ext.P1, on 28-5-1987 giving genuine reasons as to why time for filing the return is to be extended up to 15-9-1987. It should also be remembered that this application under S.65 was filed before the due date for filing of the returns under S.17(1). If the Agricultural Income-tax Officer extends the time as prayed for, there is no question of possibility for taking any action in the present case. It should also be remembered that this application under S.65 was filed before the due date for filing of the returns under S.17(1). If the Agricultural Income-tax Officer extends the time as prayed for, there is no question of possibility for taking any action in the present case. It is the claim of the assessee that in this case no orders were passed on Ext.P1 application and so it was under the impression that its request had been allowed. Let us assume for a moment for the sake of argument that the application is rejected, then what consequences follow has to be considered. If the application is rejected, the liability to file the return on or before the 1st June is there, and then the return filed on 22-8-1987 would be a case of filing a return late under S.17(3). For such a delayed filing of the return, it is open to the department to take action under S.52 and impose a fine, which may extend to Rs.5/- per every day during which the default continues. It is also open to the department to prosecute it under S.53. It is also open to take action under S.10(1) and direct payment of penalty. There is no provision by which a penalty of 2% per month could be imposed. 8. S.17A is the most important Section, and this Section which was introduced by Act 17/80 is a complete code in itself regarding the system of self-assessment and advance payment of tax. The Section reads as follows: 17A. Self assessment. - (1) Every person liable to furnish a return under S.17 or S.35 shall pay before furnishing the return the amount of tax on the total agricultural income admitted in the return, and the return shall be accompanied by proof of payment of such tax. (2) After regular assessment under S.18 has been made, any amount paid under subsection (1) shall be deemed to have been paid towards such regular assessment. (3) If any person fails to pay the tax or any part thereof in accordance with the provisions of sub-section (1), the assessing authority may direct that a sum equal to two per cent of such tax or part thereof, as the case may be, shall be recovered from him by way of penalty for every month during which the default continues. Provided that, before levying any such penalty, the person shall be given a reasonable opportunity of being heard. (4) When any tax is due under this Section or any penalty is due in consequence of any order passed under this Section, the assessing authority shall serve on the person a notice of demand in the prescribed form specifying the sum so payable." 9. Sub-section (1) of S.17A stipulates that the person who is liable to furnish a return shall pay the total tax on the admitted agricultural income shown in the return. The return should also be accompanied by proof of payment of the tax. Sub-section (2) provides for reckoning the amount paid under sub-section (1) towards the regular assessment once the regular assessment is made under S.18. Sub-section (3) contemplates two contingencies, where the penalty is stipulated under the Section is to be levied. The first contingency is where the person fails to pay the admitted tax and the second contingency is where any part of the admitted taxis not paid. In such cases, the assessing authority may direct that a sum equal to 2 per cent of the tax not paid or part of the tax not paid shall be recovered from him by way of penalty for every month during which the default continues. The proviso to sub-section (3) contemplates that before levying penalty under sub-section (3) reasonable opportunity should be given to the assessee. Sub-section (4) deals with the procedure for recovering the tax due or the penalty due. 10. From the language of S.17A it is quite clear that the power to impose penalty under S.17A(3) is limited to the nonpayment of the admitted tax as per the return and the non-payment of the part of the admitted tax. The right under S.17A(3) does not extend to levying a penalty in cases of filing a delayed return and thus delaying the payment. There is absolutely no reference to cases of filing a return after the due date. It should be remembered that there is no reference to delayed filing of the returns in this Section, because S.17(3) specifically provides for filing a return later than the due date and for filing a revised return after the due date. The consequences that follow for delayed filing of a return and for filing a revised return are different. They do not come within the ambit of S.17A. The consequences that follow for delayed filing of a return and for filing a revised return are different. They do not come within the ambit of S.17A. In this context it would be relevant to refer toS.140Aofthe Income-tax Act which was in force at the time of passing the Amendment Act 17/80. Subsection (3) ofS.140A, as it stood then, is identical to S.17A(3) of the Agricultural Income-tax Act. It should be remembered that in the Statement of Objects and Reasons, the Finance Minister categorically stated that as regards the rates of Agricultural Income-tax Act, it would be brought on par with the Central Income-tax rates, and that the system of paying admitted tax along with the return would be introduced. So the Legislature actually engrafted into the State Act Section 140A (3) of the Income-tax Act, as it then existed. 11. There are a few other indications in the scheme of the Act to show that S.17A (3) cannot be invoked for penalising a person who files the return after the due date. Those indications are as follows. If the authority extends the time for filing the return under S.65, no action can be taken against the assessee for filing the returns after the due date. The action under Ss.20(1), 52 and 53 cannot be taken. Neither can a fine or penalty be imposed, nor can be prosecuted. Under the scheme of the Act sanctions or consequences provided for delayed filing of the returns are only in Ss.20(1), 52 and 53. As far as S.17A is concerned it only deals with the system of self-assessment and payment of the admitted tax. As long as the admitted tax is paid before filing the return and proof of payment of the admitted tax is produced along with the return, no action can be taken to levy any penalty under S.17A(3). 12. The decisions cited under the Income-tax Act clearly show that in cases where no orders were passed on the application for extension of time for filing the return, the assessee is justified in construing the silence as sanction of his request. The decision in Lachman ChaturbhujJava v. R.N. Nitsure, (1981) 1321.T.R.631 clearly lays down that the assessee is justified in assuming that the silence on the part of the departing is consent and that the time is extended till December, 1970 to file the returns. The decision in Lachman ChaturbhujJava v. R.N. Nitsure, (1981) 1321.T.R.631 clearly lays down that the assessee is justified in assuming that the silence on the part of the departing is consent and that the time is extended till December, 1970 to file the returns. The decision in C.I.T. v. Gordhanbhai Jethabhai, (1983) 142 I.T.R.84 held that when an application for extension of time for filing the return was not disposed of by the Income-tax Officer, the assessee could have reasonably entertained the belief that his application was granted by the Income-tax Officer. If under such belief, he did not furnish the returns in time, it could not be said that there was no reasonable cause for not furnishing the returns in time. Penalty could not therefore be imposed under S.271(1)(a). The principle of these two decisions would apply to the facts of our case. The decision in Sampangirama Raju v. Vth ITO, (1988) 173 itr 609 (Kar.) clearly lays down that penalty is leviable under the said proviso for any failure to pay the tax or any part of it along with the return furnished. As indicated earlier, S.17A is a complete code in itself, and subsection (3) only contemplates levying of penalty for nonpayment of the admitted tax or for non-payment of the part of the admitted tax at the time of filing the returns. 13. Reliance is placed upon Samogiri P. Ltd. v. Agrl. Income-tax Officer, (1989) 2 KLT 770, but I am not discussing this decision in detail because it is represented during the course of arguments that an appeal filed against this decision is pending before the IV th Court and the appeal is not yet admitted, as a petition to condone the delay is still pending. 14. Considering the scheme of the Act and the provisions, it is quite clear that S.17A(3) cannot be utilised for levying a penalty in cases where the entire admitted tax is paid, if the return is filed late. It is open to the department to take action under the other provisions of the Act for the filing of the late return. On the facts of this particular case, as the department failed to pass orders on Ext. P1 application, the department is precluded from taking action against the assessee for delayed filing of the return. 15. It is open to the department to take action under the other provisions of the Act for the filing of the late return. On the facts of this particular case, as the department failed to pass orders on Ext. P1 application, the department is precluded from taking action against the assessee for delayed filing of the return. 15. After having recorded my conclusions regarding the scheme of the Act, it would be proper for me to point out how exactly the mistake arose in the impugned orders, Exts. P4 and P6. In Ext. P4 order dated 9-3-1988 while discussing the legal aspects the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner failed to notice the existence of S.17(3) and what consequential action is to betaken for simple cases of delayed filing of the return. The order also indicates that the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner was treating as if S.17(1) and S.17A should be considered together, and he treated as if S.17(1) is part and parcel of S.17A. Similarly in Ext. P6 the Commissioner read together Ss.17 and 17a and he failed to notice S.17(3). The conclusion of the Commissioner that S.17ai3) would apply if tax is not paid on the due date is against the provisions of S.17(3), and S.65. It is also opposed to the scheme of the provisions for levying penalty, fine and prosecution provided under Ss.20(1), 52 and 53. The authorities went wrong in their interpretation of the law. The error is apparent from the record. 16. For the various reasons given above, the O.P. is allowed, and Ext. P4 order and Ext. P6 order confirming Ext. P4 order are hereby quashed. The petitioner will be entitled to its costs, advocate's fee fixed at Rs. 1000/-.