SAMBASIVA RAO, ALLADI KUPPUSWAMI, J.

( 1 ) IS there an occasion to introduce the doctrine of mens rea into section 271 (1) (a) read with sub-clause (i) of that section of the indian Income-tax Act, 1961 Seeking an answer to this question, these four writ appeals have been directed by Chinnappa reddy and Jeevan Reddy, JJ. ,to be placed before Full Bench.

( 2 ) IT is not necessary for answering the question and also forthe adjudication of the four appeals before us to go into the facts in minute detail. Broadlystated, the material facts are The respondents are assessees which are firms. They failed to file their returns for the years 1965-66 to l969-70 within the time prescribed under the Indian Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Act ). An explanation was tendered for this delay saying that the person who was in charge of the accounts of the firms was unable to look after the affairs of the firms for sometime owing to some personal reasons. The income-tax Officer was not inclined to accept this explanation and levied penalties for late submission of the returns. The respondents preferred revision petitions before the Commissioner of Incometax. Before him, the reason for the delay was stated as family troubles. He rejected the revision petitions as he did not accept the explanation. Thereupon, writ petitions were filed in this Court by the res. pondents. Obul Reddi, J. , (as he then was) quashed the orders of the Commissioner, holding that the penalties could be imposed only when it was found that the assessees acted deliberately in defiance of the law, or was guilty of contumacious or dishonest conductor acted in conscious disregard of his otligations and not otherwise. The learned Judge sent back the matters to the Commissioner for reconsidering them in the light of the observations he made and the observations of the supreme Court in Hindustan Steel Ltd. v. State of Orissa. The department preferred these writ appeals challenging the learned Judge s order.

( 3 ) THE viewexpressed by Obul Reddi, J. sitting single in these writ petitions, was later reiterated and approved by a Division Bench consisting of Obul Reddi,c. J. and Punnayya,j. in Additional Commissioner of Income-tax v. Narayandas Ramkishan.

( 4 ) IT was after rendering of the above bench decision, these four writ appeals came before Ghinnappa Reddy and Jeevan reddy JJ. The learned Judges observed that it was extremely difficult to agree with the view taken by Obul Reddi, J. , sitting single, which was reiterated in Narayandas ramakishan case. While stating this, the learned Judge s gave their reasons for their disagreement. According to them, penalty could be imposed for the delayed filing ofthe return under section 271 (1) (a) of the Act when the Income-tax Officer is satisfied that the assessee has without reasonable cause" failed to file it within the prescribed time. While imposing such a penalty, what all the Income tax officer is to be satisfied about is that the delay occurred without reasonable cause". The provision of law requires nothing more or nothing less. The Parliament itself has thus provided an objective test to determine the mental state of the person proposed to be proceeded against. There is no reason for importing the doctrine of metis rea into a situation where the requisite mental state is already defined. There is no justification for qualifying the failure to file a return with the expressions, contumacious dishonest in deliberate "defiance" of law" etc. Then the learned Judges proceeded to give the reasons in detail for the conclusions they had reached. Since this view is in conflict with the decision of the earlier Division Benchin Narayandas ramkiskan case they decided that the conflict should be resolved by a Full bench.

( 5 ) WHILE commending the appeals,and the view propounded by Ghinnappa Reddy and Jeevan Reddy, JJ. , in their order referring the appeals to a Full Bench, sri Polavarapu Ramrao, pressed his brief i