Judgment 1. This appeal has been preferred by the assessee mainly on the question of justification for penalty under Section 271(1)(a) of the IT Act, 1961 (for short, the Act). 2. Original assessment in the case of assessee was made on 13th March, 1978. On receipt of information that income in the form of investment in construction of building and installation of plant and machinery had escaped assessment, a notice was issued to the assessee on 14th Feb., 1980. The assessee did not file any return. Therefore, the assessment was framed under Section 144 of the Act. The assessee filed an application under Section 146 of the Act but still failed to file any return The assessment was again framed on 23rd March, 1984. The assessee again moved an application under Section 146 of the Act and filed return on 3rd Nov., 1984. The AO framed assessment once again on 28th Feb., 1986. After remand, finally, the assessment was framed on 24th Feb., 1989. It was found that cost of construction of building shown by the assessee was incorrect and on this ground, a sum of Rs. 2,49,955 was added towards the income and addition was also made in respect of understated valuation of machinery and plant. Proceedings for penalty were also initiated. Thereafter, penalty was imposed under Section 271(1)(a) of the Act. The said order was affirmed in appeal. The Tribunal also affirmed the penalty, noticing that several opportunities had been given to the assessee and it had been found that the assessee had deliberately not disclosed correct income. Return itself was filed 56 months after the notice under Section 148 of the Act, which justified the imposition of penalty. 3. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that there was no satisfaction recorded that the assessee failed to furnish return without reasonable cause. 4. There is no merit in this contention. The Tribunal in para 9.5 of its order observed: 9.5 Even otherwise, the purpose of allowing an opportunity to the assessee is to enable the assessee to explain the reasons for the delay in filing the return. It is not in dispute that the return was actually filed on 3rd Nov., 1984 and the same was late by 56 months. The Tribunal in para 9.5 of its order observed: 9.5 Even otherwise, the purpose of allowing an opportunity to the assessee is to enable the assessee to explain the reasons for the delay in filing the return. It is not in dispute that the return was actually filed on 3rd Nov., 1984 and the same was late by 56 months. No plea has been taken before me that the assessee had submitted a letter before the AO to treat the original return in response to notice issued under Section 148. Nor, it has been contended that the return filed on 3rd Nov., 1984 was a duplicate return. Thus, the factum of delay in filing the return of income late by 56 months is accepted. But there is absolutely no explanation either before the authorities below or even before this Bench as to why the assessee could not file the return of income in time. No reasons for delay have at all been given by the assessee. Not a word has been said about the merits of the case. In the case of Smt. Kamla Vati v. CIT (1978) 111 ITR 248 (P&H), the Hon ble Punjab & Haryana High Court has held that doctrine of mens rea has no application to the taxing statutes. Where the assessee had failed to furnish a return of income without a reasonable cause, this was sufficient for the imposition of penalty under Section 271(1)(a) of the IT Act. In the present case, the assessee has failed to do so. Therefore, it is clear that the assessee has no explanation to offer for such inordinate delay. Accordingly, the submissions of the assessee that the penalty has been imposed without allowing an opportunity is without any merit. This ground of appeal is also rejected. 5. In view of the finding of the Tribunal, no substantial guestion of law arises. Judgments relied upon by the learned Counsel for the appellant in CIT v. Munish Iron Store , CIT v. Parmanand M. Patel, CIT v. Auto Lamps Ltd., CIT v. Vikas Promoters (P) Ltd. and CIT v. Ram Commercial Enterprises Ltd., have no application in view of the finding recorded by the Tribunal, in the present case. 6. Judgments relied upon by the learned Counsel for the appellant in CIT v. Munish Iron Store , CIT v. Parmanand M. Patel, CIT v. Auto Lamps Ltd., CIT v. Vikas Promoters (P) Ltd. and CIT v. Ram Commercial Enterprises Ltd., have no application in view of the finding recorded by the Tribunal, in the present case. 6. We may also refer to judgment of the Kerala High Court in CIT v. Kerala Transport Co., holding: Thus, it is clear that the failure to file a return itself invites penalty under s. 271(1)(a) of the Act and no mens rea and contumacious conduct on the part of the assessee in not filing the return is needed. It is also clear that the burden is on the assessee to prove a reasonable cause for non-imposition of penalty for failure to file the return in time. In this context, the explanation offered by the assessee to the notice issued under Section 271(1)(a) of the Act becomes relevant... 7. Similar view has been taken by the Bombay High Court in Mckenzies Ltd. & Oriental Timber Trading Corporation (P) Ltd. v. CIT (2002) 242 ITR 669 (Bom) at p. 670, wherein it was observed: ...The finding regarding reasonable cause is ordinarily a finding of fact. In the instant, case, it is clear from the statement of the case as also the order of the Tribunal that the assessee did not submit any explanation whatsoever about the reasonable cause for the delay of 12 months in submission of the return. The assessee even did not respond to the show cause notice issued by the ITO under Section 271(1)(a) of the Act. The Tribunal has specifically recorded this fact in its order.... The appeal is dismissed.