V.K. SINGHAL, J. - (1.) THE Tribunal has referred the following question of law arising out of its order dt. 21st June, 1985, in respect of the asst. yr. 1977-78 under s. 256(1) of the IT Act, 1961 : "Whether the Tribunal, on the facts and circumstances of the case, was justified in upholding the interest charged under s. 139(8) and under s. 217 ?"
(2.) THE brief facts of the case are that reassessment proceedings under s. 148 were initiated. THE ITO has levied the interest under s. 139(8) for delay in filing the return and also interest under s. 217 for non-payment of advance tax. THE assessee contended before the AAC that reassessment proceedings are different from regular assessment proceedings in view of (the definition of) regular assessment contained in s. 2(40) of the Act. THE AAC set aside the interest levied. THE matter was challenged before the Tribunal and the Tribunal found that the assessment would have been completed by 31st March, 1980, and, therefore, the ITO could have issued the notice. It was found that notice under s. 148 was issued before the expiry of last date i.e. 31st March, 1980, and the assessee having filed the return on 25th Feb., 1980, the ITO was justified in levying the interest on the ground that the notice under s. 148 is to be treated as the notice under s. 139(2). Sec. 139(2) of the Act provides that where the return under sub-s. (1) or sub-s. (2) or sub-s. (4) for an assessment year is furnished after the specified date, or is not furnished, then whether or not the ITO has extended the date for furnishing the return under sub-s. (1) or sub-s. (2), the assessee shall be liable to pay simple interest at 12% p.a. Expln. 2 provides that if an assessment is made for the first time under s. 147, the assessment so made shall be regarded as regular assessment for the purpose of this sub-section. This Court in the case of CIT vs. Mannalal Nirmal Kumar (1992) 106 CTR (Raj) 144 : (1992) 198 ITR 556 (Raj) : TC 4R.924, the definition of word `regular assessment' contained in s. 2(40) has to be read with along with s. 139(8) and also under s. 217 and the interest can be charged only if the assessment is under s. 143/144 and the assessment which has been made in pursuance of the notice under s. 148 is not covered by the term `regular assessment'. The decision in the case of CIT vs. Mannalal Nirmal Kumar (supra) is directly applicable to the facts of the present case. Following the said decision it is held that the Tribunal was not justified in upholding the interest charged under s. 139(8) and s. 217. Consequently, the reference is answered in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue. No order as to costs.;