JUDGMENT : G.T. Nanavati, J. The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal has referred the following two questions to this court under section 256(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 : "(1) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal rightly held in law that the penalty could not be imposed under section 273(c) for default committed on December 15, 1969, as the said section was not on the statute book then ? (2) Whether the Appellate Tribunal erred in law in deleting the penalty imposed under section 273(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ?" 2. This reference pertains to the assessment year 1970-71. The assessee was maintaining its accounts according to the Samvat year and Samvat year 2025 relevant to the assessment year 1970-71 ended on November 9, 1969. The assessee was, therefore, under an obligation to furnish an estimate of its income and advance tax under section 212(3A) by December 15, 1969. The assessee had earlier, pursuant to an order issued under section 210, paid Rs. 10,880 by way of advance tax. The total income returned by the assessee was Rs. 1,52,663 and the tax payable thereon worked out to Rs. 24,600 and on the basis of the assessed total income, the tax was worked out at Rs. 26,620. In view of the difference between the income-tax payable on the income disclosed in the return and the assessed total income on the one hand and the tax paid by the assessee under section 210 on the other, the Income-tax Officer initiated proceedings under section 273(c) for the reason that the assessee had failed to furnish a fresh estimate of advance tax under section 212(3A) of the Act. The assessee's explanation was that he could not furnish the estimate of its income and advance tax because his books of account were seized by the Income-tax Department. This explanation was found to be unacceptable and for the default committed by the assessee under section 212(3A), the Income-tax Officer levied penalty of Rs. 1,000. The appeal filed by the assessee before the Appellate Assistant Commissioner failed as the Appellate Assistant Commissioner agreed with the findings of the Income-tax Officer and confirmed the penalty. The assessee then preferred an appeal to the Tribunal. 1,000. The appeal filed by the assessee before the Appellate Assistant Commissioner failed as the Appellate Assistant Commissioner agreed with the findings of the Income-tax Officer and confirmed the penalty. The assessee then preferred an appeal to the Tribunal. The Tribunal followed its earlier decision in Income-tax Reference No. 2219/(Ahd) of 1975-76 decided on December 13, 1977, wherein it was held as under : "In our view, however, the provisions are clear. Default has been committed on March 15, 1970, as that was the last day by which the assessee had to file the estimate under section 212(3A). Section 273(c) provides for penalty for not filing estimate. However, section 273(c) came on the statute book only from April 1, 1970, and hence on the date when the offence was committed, there was no provision for any penalty. We, therefore, accept Shri Desai's contention that the penalty could not be imposed under section 273(c) for default committed on March 15, 1970. We allow the appeal on this ground and hence we do not deal with the aspect of the reasonable cause." 3. Following that decision, the Tribunal allowed the appeal and deleted the penalty. 4. What is urged by learned counsel for the Revenue is that the Tribunal overlooked the provisions of section 273 and decided the appeal on the general principle that penalty cannot be imposed for a default committed when the said default did not amount to any offence. Following that decision, the Tribunal allowed the appeal and deleted the penalty. 4. What is urged by learned counsel for the Revenue is that the Tribunal overlooked the provisions of section 273 and decided the appeal on the general principle that penalty cannot be imposed for a default committed when the said default did not amount to any offence. The relevant part of section 273, as it stood then, read as under : "If the Income-tax Officer, in the course of any proceedings in connection with the regular assessment for the assessment year commencing on the 1st day of April, 1970, or any subsequent assessment year, is satisfied that any assessee, - (a) has furnished under section 212 an estimate of advance tax payable by him which he knew or had reason to believe to be untrue, or (b) has without reasonable cause failed to furnish an estimate of the advance tax payable by him in accordance with the provisions of sub-section (3) of section 212, or (c) has without reasonable cause failed to furnish an estimate of the advance tax payable by him in accordance with the provisions of sub-section (3A) of section 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- . . . . " 5. The opening words of section 273 make it abundantly clear that the said provision was made applicable to any proceeding in connection with regular assessment for the assessment year commencing on April 1, 1970, also. Before section 273 was substituted by the Finance Act, 1969, from April 1, 1970, there was no provision providing for penalty for non-compliance with sub-section (3) of section 212. Sub-sections (3) and (3A) of section 212 were substituted for the original sub-section (3) by the same Finance Act but with effect from April 1, 1969. Thus, the statutory liability or obligation to furnish an estimate had come into existence on April 1, 1969. The default contemplated by section 212(3A), if made without reasonable cause, was made liable to penalty by section 273 which was made effective from April 1, 1970. Thus, the statutory liability or obligation to furnish an estimate had come into existence on April 1, 1969. The default contemplated by section 212(3A), if made without reasonable cause, was made liable to penalty by section 273 which was made effective from April 1, 1970. The Legislature in terms provided that if the Income-tax Officer in the course of regular assessment for the assessment year commencing on April 1, 1970, is satisfied that any assessee has without reasonable cause failed to furnish an estimate of the advance tax payable by him in accordance with the provisions of sub-section (3A) of section 212, then 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 specified by that section. Though the provision with respect to imposition of penalty was introduced with effect from April 1, 1970, the Legislature specifically provided that such penalty may be imposed in a proceeding in connection with regular assessment for the assessment year commencing from April 1, 1970, provided the Income-tax Officer had the requisite satisfaction. In view of this clear language of section 273, it is difficult to appreciate how the general principle that penalty cannot be imposed for a default committed when no provision for penalty for such default was in existence could be applied in this case. As the Tribunal decided the question without reference to the language of section 273, it must be stated that the Tribunal was wrong in holding that no penalty could have been imposed under section 273(c) for the default committed by the assessee in not complying with the provisions of section 212(3A). 6. We, therefore, answer question No. 1 in the negative and question No. 2 in the affirmative, i.e., in favour of the Revenue and against the assessee. Reference is disposed of accordingly. No order as to costs.