Agrawal, J. - (1.)THIS is a reference made by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Jaipur Bench (hereinafter referred to as "the Tribunal "), under Section 256(1) of the I.T. Act, 1961, hereinafter referred to as "the Act"). The Tribunal has referred the following question for the opinion of this court:
"Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in upholding the levy of interest under Section 139(1)(iii) of the Act?"

(2.)IN respect of the assessment year 1966-67, the assessee was served with a notice calling upon him to file a return of income for the said assessment year. The said notice was served on the assessee on or about November 14, 1966. The assessee submitted the return on August 11, 1967. The ITO charged interest under Section 139 of the Act. The said order of the ITO with regard to the charging of interest was affirmed in appeal by the AAC and the Tribunal. On an application being moved by the assessee, the Tribunal has referred the question aforesaid for the opinion of this court.
Before the Tribunal, reliance was placed on behalf of the assessee on the decision of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in Kishan Lal Haricharan v. ITO [1971] 82 ITR 660, wherein it has been held that interest under Section 139(1)(iii) could be charged only if the assessee has applied for extension of time and the ITO grants such extension. It was submitted on behalf of the assessee that as the assessee had not applied for extension of time for filing the return, interest could not be charged under Section 139(1)(iii) of the Act. The Tribunal, however, placed reliance on the decision of this court in Daljit Singh & Co. v. Union of India (D. B. Civil Writ Petition No. 258 of 1971, dated October 22, 1971), wherein this court has held that in view of Section 139(4)(a) of the Act, interest could be charged under Section 139(1)(iii), even though no application for extension was moved before the ITO.

Shri N.K. Jain, the learned counsel for the assessee, has submitted that interest could be charged under Section 139(1)(iii)of the Act in only those cases where the assessee has applied for extension of time for filing the return and the ITO has granted such extension. Shri Jain has placed reliance on the following decisions :

1. Kishan Lal Haricharan v. ITO [1971] 82 ITR 660 (AP);

2. CIT v. Manik Rao [1911] 109 ITR 580 (AP);

3. Garg & Co. v. CIT [1974] 97 ITR 639 (Delhi) and

4. CIT v. Bahri Bros. (P.) Ltd. [1916] 102 ITR 443 (Pat).

Shri Surolia, on the other hand, has submitted that the view taken by this court in Daljit Singh & Co. v. Union of India finds support from the following decisions:

1. Biswanath Ghosh v. ITO [1974] 95 ITR 372 (Orissa).

2. Ganesh Das Sreeram v. ITO [1974] 93 ITR 19 (Gauhati).

3. Indian Telephone Industries Co-operative Society Ltd. v. ITO [1972] 86 ITR 566 (Kar).

4. Chhotalal & Co. v. ITO [1976] 105 ITR 230 (Guj).

5. Progressive Engineering Co. v. ITO [1976] 105 ITR 226 (AP).

Ito v. Secunderabad Tin Industries [1978] 113 ITR 1 (AP) [FB].

5. In Ito v. Secunderabad Tin Industries [1978] 113 ITR 1 (AP), the matter has been considered at length by a Full Bench of the Andhra Pradesh High Court. In the said judgment, the learned judges of the Andhra Pradesh High Court have overruled their earlier decision in Kishanlal Haricharan v. Ito [1971] 82 ITR 660. We are fully in agreement with the reasons given by the learned judges of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in Ito v. Secunderabad Tin Industries [1978] 113 ITR 1 (AP). In our view, in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in upholding the levy of interest under Section 139(1)(iii) of the Act.

6. Hence, the question referred by the Tribunal is answered in the affirmative, i.e., in favour of the Revenue and against the assessee. There will be no order as to costs.