Judgment G.S.Singhvi, J. 1. In this appeal filed under Section 260A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (for short, "the Act"), the appellant has prayed for determination of the following substantial questions of law : "(a) Whether, in the facts and circumstances of the case, the orders annexures P-2 and P-4 are legally sustainable ? (b) Whether, in the facts and circumstances of the case, the confirmation of the leviability of additional tax even though the total income returned was a loss is legally sustainable ? (c) Whether, in the facts and circumstances of the case, the confirmation of the leviability of additional tax ignoring the mandate, as laid down in Modi Cement Ltd. v. Union of India [1992] 193 ITR 91 (Delhi) and Sati Oil Udyog Ltd. v. CIT [1998] 232 ITR 502 (Gauhati) is legally sustainable ? (d) Whether, in the facts and circumstances of the case, the confirmation of the amount of additional tax imposed on the assessee-appellant is legally sustainable especially when the retrospective operation of the provision has been held to be invalid by the Guwahati High Court and the Income-tax Act being the Central Act is binding on the income-tax authority ?" 2. For the assessment year 1989-90, the appellant filed a return declaring losses. Subsequently, it filed a revised return declaring loss of Rs. 1,07,35,100. The Assessing Officer issued notice to the appellant proposing to levy additional tax under Section 143(1A) of the Act on account of reduction in the net loss declared by it. The latter challenged the same by filing an application under Section 154 of the Act which was dismissed by the Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax, Special Range, Rohtak, vide his order dated March 18, 1992. On appeal, the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), Rohtak (for short, "the CIT(A)") granted relief to the appellant by relying on the judgment of the Delhi High Court in Modi Cement Ltd. v. Union of India [1992] 193 ITR 91. He held that Section 143(1A) is applicable only where the declared income is increased as a result of adjustment or if a loss is converted into income by carrying out adjustment in accordance with the first proviso to Clause (a) of Sub-section (1A) of Section 143. He held that Section 143(1A) is applicable only where the declared income is increased as a result of adjustment or if a loss is converted into income by carrying out adjustment in accordance with the first proviso to Clause (a) of Sub-section (1A) of Section 143. The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Delhi Bench "D", New Delhi (for short, the "Tribunal"), reversed the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) by assigning the following reasons : "Section 143(1A)(a) was intended to encourage the assessee to be honest while filing the return and also to discourage the assessee from juggling with the figures by treating it as income not received or by treating the amount as a loss or as an item of expenditure. If after the provisions were properly applied to the return submitted by the assessee, the adjustments were found to be warranted, then the provision providing for the levy of additional income-tax on the amounts so adjusted would operate. This provision did not in any manner violate Article 14 of the Constitution as there was no discrimination among the assessees. The additional Income-tax leviable on the persons whose returns did not state the figures accurately under the relevant heads was in no way discriminatory or unjust and the levy of such additional income-tax did not amount to depreciation of property without any authority of law nor was the imposition of such additional tax beyond the power of Parliament." 3. Shri Akshay Bhan vehemently argued that the levy of additional tax on the appellant should be declared illegal and order dated February 17, 2000, passed by the Tribunal should be quashed because in the return as well as the revised return, it had shown losses. He relied on the judgments of the Supreme Court in CIT v. Hindustan Electro Graphites Ltd. [2000] 243 ITR 48 and of the Delhi High Court in Modi Cement Ltd. v. Union of India [1992] 193 ITR 91 ; J.K. Synthetics Ltd. v. Asst. CIT [1993] 200 ITR 584 (Delhi) and Sati Oil Udyog Ltd. v. CIT [1998] 232 ITR 502 (Gauhati) and argued that the view taken by the Tribunal on the leviability of the additional tax under Section 143(1A) should be declared as vitiated by an error of law. CIT [1993] 200 ITR 584 (Delhi) and Sati Oil Udyog Ltd. v. CIT [1998] 232 ITR 502 (Gauhati) and argued that the view taken by the Tribunal on the leviability of the additional tax under Section 143(1A) should be declared as vitiated by an error of law. He further argued that even if this court come to the conclusion that the additional tax is leviable on an assessee who files return/revised return declaring net loss, the provision contained in Section 143(1A) should be declared inapplicable to the appellants case because the return filed by it for the assessment year 1989-90 relates to the financial year 1988-89 and the amendment made by the Finance Act, 1993, was given retrospective effect from April 1, 1989. Learned counsel submitted that the express retrospectivity given to the amendment made in Section 143(1A) cannot be further extended by judicial interpretation. 4. Shri Rajesh Bindal, learned counsel for the Revenue relied on the judgment of the Supreme Court in Asst. CIT v. J. K. Synthetics Ltd. [2001] 251 ITR 200 and argued that in view of the latest judgment of the three-judge Bench, the appellant cannot seek invalidation of the order passed by the Tribunal. He further argued that the Tribunal did not commit any illegality by applying Section 143(1A) to the appellants case in relation to the assessment year 1989-90 because the amendment carried out in that section was made effective with effect from April 1, 1989, Shri Bindal pointed out that the appellant could file return for the assessment year 1989-90 on any day after April 1, 1989 and therefore, the amended Section 143(1A) was rightly applied to its case. 5. We have given serious thought to the arguments of learned counsel. 5. We have given serious thought to the arguments of learned counsel. Section 143(1)(a) and Section 143(1A) (unamended) read as under : "143.(1) (a) Where a return has been made under Section 139, or in response to a notice under Sub-section (1) of Section 142,-- (i) if any tax or interest is found due on the basis of such return, after adjustment of any tax deducted at source, any advance tax paid and any amount paid otherwise by way of tax or interest, then, without prejudice to the provisions of Sub-section (2), an intimation shall be sent to the assessee specifying the sum so payable, and such intimation shall be deemed to be a notice of demand issued under Section 156 and all the provisions of this Act shall apply accordingly; and (ii) If any refund is due on the basis of such return, it shall be granted to the assessee : Provided that in computing the tax or interest payable by, or refundable to the assessee, the following adjustments shall be made in the income or loss declared in the return, namely -- (i) any arithmetical errors in the return, accounts or documents accompanying it shall be rectified ; (ii) any loss carried forward, deduction, allowance or relief, which, on the basis of the information available in such return, accounts or documents, is prima facie admissible but which is not claimed in the return shall, be allowed ; (iii) any loss carried forward, deduction, allowance or relief claimed in the return, which, on the basis of the information available in such return, accounts or documents, is prima facie inadmissible, shall be disallowed : Provided further that where adjustments are made under the first proviso, an intimation shall be sent to the assessee, notwithstanding that no tax or interest is found due from him after making the said adjustments : Provided also, that an intimation for any tax or interest due under this clause shall not be sent after the expiry of two years from the end of the assessment year in which the income was first assessable." "143.(1A)(a) Where, in the case of any person, the total income, as a result of the adjustments made under the first proviso to Clause (a) of Sub-section (1), exceeds the total income declared in the return by any amount, the Assessing Officer shall,-- (i) further increase the amount of tax payable under Sub-section (1) by an additional income-tax calculated at the rate of twenty per cent. of the tax payable on such excess amount and specify the additional income-tax in the intimation to be sent under Sub-clause (i) of Clause (a) of Sub-section (1) ; (ii) Where any refund is due under Sub-section (1), reduce the amount of such refund by an amount equivalent to the additional income-tax calculated under Sub-clause (i)." 6. Sub-section (1A) of Section 143 was amended by the Finance Act, 1993, with effect from April 1, 1989. The amended section reads as under : (1A) (a) Where, as a result of the adjustments made under the first proviso to Clause (a) of Sub-section (1),-- (i) the income declared by any person in the return is increased ; (ii) the loss declared by such person in the return is reduced or is converted into income, the Assessing Officer shall,-- (A) in a case where the increase in income under Sub-clause (i) of this clause has increased the total income of such person, further increase the amount of tax payable under Sub-section (1) by an additional income-tax calculated at the rate of twenty per cent. on the difference between the tax on the total income so increased and the tax that would have been chargeable had such total income been reduced by the amount of adjustments and specify the additional income-tax in the intimation to be sent under Sub-clause (i) of Clause (a) of Sub-section (1) ; (B) in a case where the loss so declared is reduced under Sub-clause (ii) of this clause or the aforesaid adjustments have the effect of converting that loss into income, calculate a sum (hereinafter referred to as additional income-tax) equal to twenty per cent. of the tax that would have been chargeable on the amount of the adjustments as if it had been the total income of such person and specify the additional income-tax so calculated in the intimation to be sent under Sub-clause (i) of Clause (a) of Sub-section (1) ; (C) where any refund is due under Sub-section (1), reduce the amount of such refund by an amount equivalent to the additional income-tax calculated under Sub-clause (A) or Sub-clause (B), as the case may be." 7. In Asst. In Asst. CIT v. J.K. Synthetics Ltd. [2001] 251 ITR 200 (SC) their Lordships of the Supreme Court, while reversing two judgments of the Delhi High Court in Modi Cement Ltd. v. Union of India [1992] 193 ITR 91 and J. K. Synthetics Ltd. v. Asst. CIT [1993] 200 ITR 584, held that where loss declared by an assessee had been reduced by reason of adjustments made under Sub-section (1)(a), the provisions of Sub-section (1A) would apply and being a retrospective amendment, additional tax could be legitimately levied on the assessee. The three-judge Bench distinguished the earlier judgment of a two-judge Bench in CIT v. Hindustan Electro Graphites Ltd. [2000] 243 ITR 48 by making the following observations (page 203) : "This was a case in which the return that the assessee had filed was correct by reason of the law as it stood when the return was filed. A retrospective amendment of Section 28 of the Act rendered that return incorrect. An adjustment in the return was made under Sub-section (1) of Section 143 and, therefore, the provisions of Sub-section (1A) were sought to be invoked. This was challenged and the High Court upheld the challenge, as did this court. It took the view that the additional penalty under Sub-section (1A) bore the imprint of a penalty and no penalty could be levied because the return filed by the assessee was correct when it was filed. This judgment has no application to the facts of the present case for the reason that it is nobodys case that a retrospective amendment has rendered a correct return filed by the assessee incorrect. The question here is only whether a loss which is reduced by reason of the application of the provisions of Sub-section (1)(a) falls within the ambit of Sub-section (1A). We should add that we have reservations about the correctness of the judgment in Hindustan Electro Graphite Ltd.s case, principally because the assessee in that case had not challenged the provisions of Sub-section (1A). The appeal is allowed. The order under appeal is set aside." 8. In view of the law laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of Asst. CIT v. J. K. Synthetics Ltd. [2001] 251 ITR 200 it must be held that additional tax can be levied even if the assessee files a return showing net loss in the particular assessment year. 9. The order under appeal is set aside." 8. In view of the law laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of Asst. CIT v. J. K. Synthetics Ltd. [2001] 251 ITR 200 it must be held that additional tax can be levied even if the assessee files a return showing net loss in the particular assessment year. 9. The question which remains to be considered is whether the amended Section 143(1A) of the Act could be applied to the appellants case in relation to the assessment year 1989-90. According to Shri Akshay Bhan, learned counsel for the appellant, the amended Section 143(1A) which was made effective from April 1, 1989, could not be applied to his clients case because the return filed for the year 1989-90 relates to the financial year 1988-89, i.e., April 1, 1988, to March 31, 1989, and till that date, the amended Section 143(1A) was not in existence. The counter argument of Shri Rajesh Bindal is that the law in force on the date of filing of the return would govern the assessment. 10. We have considered the respective arguments. It is well-settled that the provisions of the Act, as the same stand amended on the 1st day of April of any financial year, are applicable to the assessment of that year. In CIT v. Isthmian Steamship Lines [1951] 20 ITR 572, their Lordships of the Supreme Court considered the applicability of the amendment made in Section 10(2)(vii) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, with effect from April 1, 1940, to the assessment year 1939-40 and held (headnote) : "(i) that the 1st of April, 1940, when the amendments to Section 10(2)(vii) took effect, and the 1st of April, 1939, mentioned in the amended proviso, must be held to apply to the assessment year and not to the accounting year because in income-tax matters the law to be applied is the law in force in the assessment year unless otherwise stated or implied. Consequently, the old law applied to every assessment year up to and including the assessment year 1939-40 : . . . Consequently, the old law applied to every assessment year up to and including the assessment year 1939-40 : . . . (iii) that the assessment year 1939-40 was not an assessment year which ended prior to the 1st of April 1939, because it ended on the 31st March, 1940, and, therefore, the unabsorbed depreciation for the year 1939-40 could be carried forward into the accounts of the assessment year 1940-41 and from there on to the accounts of the assessment years 1941-42, 1942-43 and 1943-44." 11. In Karimtharuvi Tea Estate Ltd. v. State of Kerala [1966] 60 ITR 262, their Lordships of the Supreme Court considered whether the Kerala Surcharge on Taxes Act, 1957, which came into force with effect from September 1, 1957, could be applied to the assessment year 1957-58. While holding that the law which was not in force on April 1, 1957, could not be applied to the assessment year 1957-58, the Supreme Court laid down the following proposition (page 264) : "Now, it is well-settled that the Income-tax Act, as it stands amended on the first day of April of any financial year must apply to the assessments of that year. Any amendments in the Act which come into force after the first day of April of a financial year, would not apply to the assessment for that year, even if the assessment is actually made after the amendments come into force." 12. In M.K. Venkatachalam, ITO v. Bombay Dyeing and Manufacturing Co. Ltd. [1958] 34 ITR 143 (SC); Reliance Jute and Industries Ltd. v. CIT [1979] 120 ITR 921 (SC); CIT v. M.P. Electricity Board [1994] 210 ITR 425 (MP) and Banwari Paper Mills (P.) Ltd. v. Deputy CIT [1997] 228 ITR 320 (All), it has been consistently held that the amended law obtaining on the date of filing the return would apply to the assessment proceedings of that particular assessment year. 13. In the case before us, the return for the assessment year 1989-90 must have been filed after April 1, 1989. Therefore, the law as it was obtaining on April 1, 1989, i.e., the amended Section 143(1A) of the Act was rightly applied by the Tribunal to the assessees case. 14. In the result, the questions of which determination has been sought by the appellant are answered against it and the appeal is dismissed.