The provisions of Section 271(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, apply to assessments for the year ending on March 31, 1962, or any earlier year which is completed after the first day of April, 1962.

, J.

1. In connection with the assessment years 1960-61 and 1961-62 of the assessee-firm, Messrs. Munshi Ram Tilak Raj of Amritsar, the relevant notice under Sec.22 (1) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, was published in April, 1960. This notice directed the filing of the returns by the assessee within 65 days of its publication. However, the returns for both the years were filed on the 18th of December, 1962. Admittedly, there was a delay of 30 months and 18 months, respectively, in filing these returns. Consequently, a notice under Sec.274, read with Sec.27l (1) (a) was issued to the assessee directing him to show cause why penalty be not imposed for the late filing thereof. Written explanations were filed in respect of this delay on behalf of the assessee, but the Income-tax Officer did not accept the said explanations and, holding that the same was deliberate and wilful, imposed penalties to the tune of Rs.3,61289 and Rs.2,827-19, respectively, by his orders dated the 27th June, 1963, It is evident, therefore, that the assessments for the two relevant years were completed after the first of April, 1962. The assessee. appealed and the Appellate Assistant Commissioner partially accepting the appeal directed tlat the delay in furnishing the returns committed before 1st April, 1962, be ignored on the ground of the violation of Articles 14 and 20 (1) of the Constitution of India. Accordingly, the penalties imposed were reduced to Rs.1,150 and Rs.1.165, respectively, by his consolidated order dated the 11th December, 1963. On appeal, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal (Delhi Bench "b") held that the Appellate Assistant Commissioner had erred in holding that the penalty was not leviable for the portion of the delay committed up to the 1st of April, 1962, on the ground of the constitutional violation abovesaid. However, it proceeded to hold that the penalties leviable on the assessee should be determined with reference to the provisions of the Act of 1922 and not under the Act of 1961 and, consequently, held that the reduced penalties were reasonable and did not deserve interference. Two applications were then moved by the revenue praying that a statement of the case be drawn up for reference to the High Court and, accepting the same, the Tribunal has referred the following two questions for our opinion ; "whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in holding that the penalty leviable under Sec.271 (1) (a) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, should be determined with reference to the provisions of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922

2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in holding that the penalties of Rs.1,150.00 and Rs.1,165.00, which were less than the minimum prescribed by Sec.271 (1) (i) were reasonable?" 2. Mr. D. N. Awasthy on behalf of the revenue contends that the matter now stands covered by the decision of their Lordships in Jain Brothers V/s. Union of India, [1970] 77 I. T R.107 (S. C. ). , and also places reliance on a Division Bench judgment of this court in Commissioner of Income-tax V/s. Kirpa Ram Radha Kishan, See Appendix page 623 infra, (I. T. R. No.11 of 1968, decided on 21st of April, 1970 ).

3. We do not have the advantage of hearing any argument in reply as the assessee has not put in an appearance in this court. However, it is undisputed in the present case that both the assessments are prior to the year ending the 31st day of March, 1962, and the assessments for both have been completed after the first day of April, 1962. In this context, therefore, we are of the view that the following observations of their Lordships in Jain Brothers case have a direct bearing : "we are further unable to agree that the language of Sec.271 does not warrant the taking of proceedings under that section when a default has been committed by failure to comply with a notice issued under Sec.22 (2) of the Act of 1922. It is true tha