M.H.S. Ansari, J. - (1.) At the instance of the Revenue, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal (the "ITAT"), as directed has drawn up a statement of case and referred the following questions of law arising out of its order in I. T. A. No, 537 (Cal) of 1989 pertaining to the assessment year 1974-75 : "1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in holding that the assessment under section 143(3)/147 was not regular assessment and interest under section 139(8) was not chargeable on the delay in filing the return of income ?
(2.) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in holding that the assessee was entitled to relief under section 80G on the donation of Rs. 1,57,500 when the same was not claimed in the original return and was not allowed accordingly ?
(3.) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in affirming the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) direction to carry forward the correct amount of deficiency under section 80J(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, when the Assessing Officer had already allowed in the original assessment order of the assessee such deficiency to be carried forward ?" 2. With respect to question No. 3 the admitted position is that the same does not require to be answered by this court as it merely pertains to the correct working out of the carry forward of deficiency under section 80J. 3. With regard to question No. 1 the facts relevant are that the assessee filed its original return of income on February 19, 1974, and there was a delay in filing of the same by four months. The assessee filed another return on March 31, 1987, under the amnesty scheme and the assessment was completed. Notice under section 148 was issued and in response thereto it was stated that the return filed on March 31, 1987, is to be treated as compliance with the notice under section 148. Interest under section 139(8) of the Income-tax Act was found chargeable as the return was filed on February 19, 1974, with the delay of four months. It is the admitted case of learned counsel for both, the Revenue and the assessee, that this question is to be answered in favour of the assessee in the light of the judgment of the Supreme Court in K. Govindan and Sons v. CIT [2001] 247 ITR 192.;