Judgment :- R. JAYASIMHA BABU, J. The question referred to us at the instance of the Revenue is as to whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was correct in law in holding that the interest under ss. 139(8) and 217 was not leviable in respect of an assessment made under s. 147. The assessment year is 1976-77. 2. The assessee is an individual carrying on real estate business. As he did not file any return for the asst. yr. 1976-77, the ITO issued a notice to him under s. 148 , in response to which a return was filed admitting an income of Rs. 28, 410. The assessment was completed under s. 143(3) r/w s. 147(a) of the IT Act and in the assessment order interest was also charged under ss. 139(8) and 217 for delay in filing the return and also for non-payment of advance tax in accordance with law. 3. On appeal, preferred by the assessee, the interest so levied was ordered to be deleted by the CIT(A) who relied on a decision of the Karnataka High Court Charles D'Souza vs. CIT. The Tribunal affirmed the view of the AAC and, therefore, this reference. 4. This Court in the case of Gopalaswamy Mudaliyar vs. Addl. ITO while dealing with s. 34 of the 1922 Act which corresponds to s. 147 of the 1961 Act held that where the assessee fails to submit any return of income during the relevant assessment year and an assessment is for the first time made on him under s. 34(1)(a) of the 1922 Act r/w s. 23, interest under s. 18A(6) will be charged for failure on the assessee's part to pay advance tax in accordance with s. 18A(3). 5. The law laid down by this Court in that decision is applicable to the facts of this case as well, as though that decision was rendered under the 1922 Act, the principle laid down there namely that the assessment made for the first time though not on the basis of return voluntarily filed in the manner required by the statutory provision and within the time prescribed therein, it was a regular assessment when made for the first time is applicable to an assessment made under the 1961 Act as well. There is no express prohibition in the Act for treating such an assessment as a regular assessment. The word 'assessment' as defined in the Act, includes reassessment. In this case no reassessment had been done. The ITO had issued a notice calling for a return and thereafter the return had been filed. The assessment so made for the first time was in fact a regular assessment and the applicability of ss. 139 and 217 of the Act are not excluded in respect of such an assessment. 6. Though the Karnataka High Court in the case of Charles D'Souza vs. CIT (supra) has taken a different view and that view has been followed by the Tribunal, having regard to the principle enunciated by this Court in the case of Gopalaswamy Mudaliyar, cited supra, with which we are in respectful agreement, we must hold that the Tribunal was in error in holding that the assessment made in this case for the first time was not a regular assessment and that interest was not leviable. We may also add one more reason for reaching such a conclusion. It could not have been the policy of the Act to treat persons who neglected their obligation to file the return within the time, in a more favourable way than those who by complying with law have filed their returns, voluntarily whether within the time allowed by law or belatedly. The assessee in this case had neglected to file the return and the return was filed only after the notice was issued. In the return filed the assessee admitted the assessable income and tax was levied thereon. The assessee though having a taxable income, had failed to pay the advance tax and had also committed delay in filing the return. The interest charged for such failure was in accordance with the policy as also the provisions of the Act. 7. The levy of interest on such assessment made for the first time under s. 147 has been held by the High Courts of Delhi, Bombay and Kerala to be valid, as in the view taken by those High Courts also such an assessment is a regular assessment. The decision of the Delhi High Court is to be found in the case of National Agricultural Co-operative Marketing Federation of India Ltd. vs. Union of India and CIT vs. Pratap Singh of Nabha. The decision of the Delhi High Court is to be found in the case of National Agricultural Co-operative Marketing Federation of India Ltd. vs. Union of India and CIT vs. Pratap Singh of Nabha. The decision of the Bombay High Court is in the case of Devi Prasad Kejriwal vs. CIT and that of the Full Bench of the Kerala High Court is in the case of Lally Jacob vs. ITO. 8. We, therefore, answer the question referred to us in favour of the Revenue and against the assessee.