JUDGMENT B.A. Khan, J. 1. The Income tax Appellate Tribunal, Indore Bench, has referred the following question, said to be a question of law arising out of its order dated June 12, 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 a return under Section 9 of the Surtax Act, 1964, can be levied if the return, though belated, is filed before the completion of assessment ?" 2. The facts are not in dispute. The assessee was to file the return for the assessment year 1975-74 under the Companies (Profits) Surtax Act, 1964, by September 30, 1973, the company, however, filed the return on December 22, 1977. The assessment was, however, completed on March 27, 1992. Since the return was filed by the assessee beyond the prescribed time, the Assessing Officer initiated penalty proceedings under Section 9(1) of the Act and put the company on showcause notice. The company replied to the notice contending that the return was filed declaring chargeable loss at Rs. 1,03,920 but due to disallowance of provision of gratuity amounting to Rs. 10,03,920, 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 Assessing Officer levied penalty of Rs. 1,15,100 on the company. 3. The assessee took an appeal to the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) which was allowed by placing reliance on a judgment of the Calcutta High Court in Calcutta Chromotype Pvt Ltd. v. ITO [1971] 80 ITR 627, holding that penalty was leviable only for failure to file the return under Section 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 the Commissioner of Income tax (Appeals). The Revenue thereafter sought a reference under Section 18(1)(a) of the Act and that is how the Tribunal had drawn up 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 companies, other than those 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 companies, other than those 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 Income-tax Act which also provides 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 Section 5 of the Companies (Profits) Surtax Act, 1964, the return is required to be filed by the assessee before September 30, of the assessment year, which period can be extended by the Assessing Officer on the application of the asses-see. Sub-section (2) of the section provides for serving of a special notice to the principal officer of the company or where the company is a non-resi dent, to any person who has been treated as an agent under Section 163 of the Income-tax Act. Under this provision the return is required to be filed within 30 days from the date of service of notice. Even this period can be extended by the Assessing Officer under Sub-section (3) of the section which provides for furnishing of a return or a revised return by the asses-see 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-section (1) or Sub-section (2), or having furnished a return under Sub-section (1) or Sub-section (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. Section 9 of the Act similarly deals with penalties and lays down that if any assessee fails to furnish the return required under Section 5 or fails to produce accounts or documents or conceals the particulars of chargeable profits or furnishes inaccurate particulars of profits, the Income-tax Officer 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: "9. The relevant part of this section provides as under: "9. Penalties.--If the Income-tax Officer, 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 Section 5, or to produce or cause to be produced the accounts, documents or other evidence required by the Income-tax Officer under Sub-section (1) of Section 6, or has concealed the particulars of the chargeable profits or has furnished inaccurate 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-sections (1) and (2) of Section 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 Section 9 of the Act which specifically provided for the levy of penalty where a person had failed to furnish the return as required under Section 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 the Income-tax Act. Therefore, so long as such an eventuality was not specifically provided for 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 and 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 the judgments of various High Courts reported in CIT v. Anchor Pressing (P.) Ltd. [1982] 136 ITR 505 (All); CIT v. Triveni Engineering Works Ltd, [1985] 154 ITR 561 (Delhi) and Calcutta Chromotype Pvt. Ltd. v. ITO [1971] 80 ITR 627 (Cal). 7. We find support for all this from the judgments of various High Courts reported in CIT v. Anchor Pressing (P.) Ltd. [1982] 136 ITR 505 (All); CIT v. Triveni Engineering Works Ltd, [1985] 154 ITR 561 (Delhi) and Calcutta Chromotype Pvt. Ltd. v. ITO [1971] 80 ITR 627 (Cal). 7. Viewed thus, we hold that no penalty was leviable for late filing of the return by an assessee under Section 9 of the Act and that it could be levied only in the 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 sections 5(3) and 9 of the Act and to that extent both the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) and the Tribunal had decided the issue correctly. We affirm the view taken by them and answer the stated question in the affirmative.