The liability to pay statutory interest under Sec.139 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (prior to its amendment with effect from 1st April, 1971), for the delayed filing of returns, does not rest only on an application for extension of time but is independently attracted in the case of the filing of a return beyond the due date.

S.S.Sandhawalia, J.

1. Whether the statutory liability to pay interest under Sec.139 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (prior to its amendment with effect from 1st of April, 1971), for delayed filing of returns arises only from an application for extension of time and is not at all attracted in the absence of such an application, is the significant controversial question necessitating this reference to the Full Bench. Directly under challenge is the ratio of the Division Bench judgment of this court in CIT V/s. Bahri Bros. (P) Ltd. [1976] 102 ITR 443 holding to this effect.

2. Undoubtedly, there still persists some cleavage of judicial opinion on the point aforesaid within the country. On the one hand are the Division Bench judgments of the High Courts of Patna, Delhi and Jammu and Kashmir whilst, on the other side, is arrayed the massive catena of decisions of the Full Bench of the Andhra Pradesh and the Gauhati High Courts as also the Division Bench judgments of the High Courts of Guja-rat, Calcutta, Madhya Pradesh, Allahabad, Kerala, Karnataka and Rajasthan. With such a mass of judicial opinion and, indeed, if one may say so, a maze of precedents, it seems not only unnecessary but really wasteful to now launch on a fresh dissertation on principle. It would, therefore, be amply sufficient to broadly indicate the reasons for agreement with the one or the other stream of judicial thought.

3. Inevitably one must now advert first, albeit briefly, to the matrix of facts giving rise to the question herein. Regretfully, it has to be noticed that we are yet dealing with a case in which the accounting year is one ending with Diwali on October 21, 1968. The assessee, under the law, was required to file the return for the assessment year in question by June 30, 1969. No return was filed by that date. On November 15, 1971, the Revenue issued a notice under Sec.139(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter to be referred to as the "Act"). In response to the notice, return was then filed on November 29, 1971. The Income-tax Officer, after assessing the tax liability of the assessee, imposed the statutory interest upon the assessee for the late filing of the return. On appeal to the Appellate Assistant Commissioner, the assessee, apart from challenging the assessment on merits, contended that he having not made any application for extension of time for filing of the return and no extension having been granted, there could be no liability to pay interest unded Section 139. This submission found favour with the Appellate Assistant Commissioner. He set aside the interest imposed. Aggrieved thereby, the Revenue came up by way of an appeal to the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal wherein cross-objections were filed on behalf of the assessee as well. On the material point of the liability to pay interest, the Tribunal concurred with the Appellate Assistant Commissioner by primarily relying on the Division Bench judgment of this court in CIT V/s. Bahri Brothers (P) Ltd. [1976] 102 ITR 443. The Revenue then preferred a reference application and the following question has been referred by the Tribunal to this court:

"Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of this case, the Tribunal was correct in law in holding that interest under Sec.139 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, was not exigible in this case?"

4. The matter came up originally before a Division Bench presided over by my learned brother, Uday Sinha J. Before them, firm reliance was placed on Bahri Brothers case [1976] 102 ITR 443 (Pat), by the asses-see while an equally strenuous challenge to its correctness was laid on behalf of the Revenue. Noticing the conflict of precedents on the point and expressing a doubt about the correctness of the view propounded in Bahri Brothers case [1976] 102 ITR 443 (Pat), the matter has been referred to the Full Bench,

5. Inevitably one must now advert to the language of the relevant part of Sec.139 as it stood before its amendment by the taxation Laws (