ORDER B.A. KHAN, J: The Tribunal, Indore Bench, has referred the following question, said to be the question of law arising out of its order dt. 12th June, 1995 for opinion of this Court : 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is justified in holding that no penalty for late filing of return under s. 9 of the Surtax Act, 1964, can be levied if the return, though belated, is filed before the completion of assessment?" 2. Facts are not in dispute. The assessee was to file the return for the asst. yr. 1973-74 under the Companies (Profits) Surtax Act, 1964, by 30th Sept., 1973. The company, however, filed the return on 22nd Dec., 1977. The assessment was, however, completed on 27th March, 1992. Since the return was filed by the assessee beyond the prescribed time, AO initiated penalty proceedings under s. 9(1) of the Act and put the company on show-cause notice. The company replied to the notice contending that return was filed declaring chargeable loss at Rs. 1,03,920 but due to disallowance of provision of gratuity amounting to Rs. 1,03,920, there became a positive income. Hence it had a reasonable cause for not filing the return in time. It accordingly prayed for dropping of penalty proceedings. But the AO levied penalty of Rs. 1,15,100 on the company. 3. The assessee took appeal to CIT(A) which was allowed by placing reliance on a judgment of Calcutta High Court in Calcutta Chromotype Ltd. vs. ITO & Ors. (1971) 80 ITR 627 (Cal) holding that penalty was leviable only for failure to file the return under s. 9 of the Act and not for late filing of the return. The Revenue carried the appeal to the Tribunal which affirmed the order of CIT(A). The Revenue thereafter sought reference under s. 18(1)(a) of the Act and that is how the Tribunal had drawn the statement of the case and referred the aforesaid stated question for our opinion. 4. It requires to be pointed out at the very outset that the Act envisages levy of surtax on the excess profits of the company, other than which have no share capital over and above a certain figure. 4. It requires to be pointed out at the very outset that the Act envisages levy of surtax on the excess profits of the company, other than which have no share capital over and above a certain figure. Such a company has to file its return for purposes of assessment to income-tax under the provisions of the IT Act which also provide for a penalty leviable for failure to file the return without any reasonable cause and also for non-filing of return within the prescribed time. But under s. 5 of the Companies (Profits) Surtax Act, 1964, the return is required to be filed by the assessee before 30th day of September of the assessment year which period can be extended by the AO on the application of assessee. Sub-s. (2) of the section provides for serving of a special notice to the principle officer of the company or where the company is non-resident, to any person who has been treated as an agent under s. 163 of IT Act. Under this provision return is required to be filed within 30 days from the date of service of notice. Even this period can be extended by the AO. Sub-s. (3) of the section provides for furnishing of a return or a revised return by the assessee at any time before the assessment is made. The relevant provision reads thus: "(3) Any assessee who has not furnished a return during the time allowed under sub-s. (1) of sub-s. (2), or having furnished a return under sub-s. (1) or sub-s. (2) discovers any omission or wrong statement therein, may furnish a return or a revised return, as the case may be, at any time before the assessment is made." 5. Sec. 9 of the Act similarly deals with penalties and lays down that if any assessee fails to furnish the return required under s. 5 or fails to produce accounts or documents or conceals particulars of chargeable profits or furnishes inaccurate particulars of profits, ITO in such cases on feeling satisfied may direct levy of penalty in addition to the tax amount. The relevant part of this section provides as under: "Sec. 9 Penalties.-If the ITO in the course of any proceedings under this Act, is satisfied that any person has, without reasonable cause, failed to furnish the return required under s. 5, or to produce or cause to be produced the accounts, documents or other evidence required by the ITO under sub-s. (1) of s. 6, or has concealed the particulars of such profits, he may direct that such person shall pay, by way of penalty." 6. It emerges from the conjoint reading of the two provisions that an assessee could furnish a return or revised return at any time before the assessment was made if he had not furnished such return within the prescribed time under sub-ss. (1) and (2) of s. 5. In other words, an assessee's belated filing of return was permissible where such return was filed before the completion of assessment and the same did not attract or invite any penal action. This was in tune with the penalty provisions contained in s. 9 of the Act which specifically provided for the levy of penalty where a person had failed to furnish the return as required under s. 5 of the Act without any reasonable cause. This provision did not contemplate any levy of penalty for late filing of the return as was the case under the relevant provisions of IT Act. Therefore, so long as such an eventuality was not specifically provided and laid down in the statute, it could not be inferred or read into it as that would run counter to all rules of construction related to taxing statutes. It is elementary that in a taxing Act there is no room for presumption or equity. Nothing can be read into it, nor can anything be implied where the words are precise or unambiguous. Should the provision suffer from any ambiguity it should receive the construction which goes in favour of the assessee subject. We find support for all this from judgment of various High Courts reported in CIT vs. Anchor Pressing (P) Ltd. (1982) 26 CTR (All) 447 (1982) 136 ITR 505 (All), CIT vs. Triveni Engg. Works Ltd. (1984) 41 CTR (Del) 97: (1981) 154 ITR 561 (Del) and (1971) 80 ITR 627 (Cal) (supra). 7. We find support for all this from judgment of various High Courts reported in CIT vs. Anchor Pressing (P) Ltd. (1982) 26 CTR (All) 447 (1982) 136 ITR 505 (All), CIT vs. Triveni Engg. Works Ltd. (1984) 41 CTR (Del) 97: (1981) 154 ITR 561 (Del) and (1971) 80 ITR 627 (Cal) (supra). 7. Viewed thus, we hold that no penalty was leviable for late filing of the return by an assessee under s. 9 of the Act and that it could be levied only in case of failure by the assessee to file the requisite return without any reasonable cause. 8. In the present case the assessee had not failed to file the return. The company had only filed it late before the assessment was made. Its action was, therefore, saved both under ss. 5(3) and 9 of the Act and to that extent both CIT(A) and the Tribunal had decided the issue correctly. We affirm the view taken by them and answer the stated question in affirmative.