JUDGMENT JUDGMENT judgment of court was delivered by AGRAWAL J.-This is reference made by Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Jaipur Bench (hereinafter referred to as " Tribunal "), under s. 256(1) of I.T. Act, 1961, hereinafter referred to as " Act "). Tribunal has referred following question for opinion of this court: " Whether, on facts and in circumstances of case, Tribunal was justified in upholding levy of interest under s. 139(1)(iii) of Act? In respect of assessment year 1966-67, assessee was served with notice calling upon him to file return of income for said assessment year. said notice was served on assessee on or about November 14, 1966. assessee submitted return on August 11, 1967. ITO charged interest under s. 139 of Act. said order of ITO with regard to charging of interest was affirmed in appeal by AAC and Tribunal. On application being moved by assessee, Tribunal has referred question aforesaid for opinion of this court. Before Tribunal, reliance was placed on behalf of assessee on decision of Andhra Pradesh High Court in Kishan Lal Haricharan v ITO [1971] 82 ITR 660, wherein it has been held that interest under s. 139(1)(iii) could be charged only if assessee has applied for extension of time and ITO grants such extension. It was submitted on behalf of assessee that as assessee had not applied for extension of time for filing return, interest could not be charged under s. 139(1)(iii) of Act. Tribunal, however, placed reliance on 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 s, 139(4)(a) of Act, interest could be charged under s. 139(1)(iii), even though no application for extension was moved before ITO. Shri N. K. Jain, learned counsel for assessee" has submitted that interest could be charged under s. 139(1)(iii) of Act in only those cases where assessee has applied for extension of time for filing return and ITO has granted such extension. Shri Jain has placed reliance on following decisions: 1. Kishan, Lal Haricharan v. ITO [1971] 82 ITR 660 (AP); 2. CIT v. Manik Rao [1977] 109 ITR 580. (AP); 3. Garg & Co. v. CIT [1974] 97 ITR 639 (Delhi) and 4. CIT v. Bahri Bros. (P.) Ltd. [1976] 102 ITR 443 (Pat). Shri Surolia, on other hand, has submitted that view taken by this court in Daljit Singh Co. v. Union of India finds support from 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). 6. ITO v. Secunderabad Tin Industries [1978] 113 ITR 1 (AP) [FB]. In ITO v. Secunderabad Tin Industries [1978] 113 ITR 1 (AP), matter has been considered at length by Full Bench of Andhra Pradesh High Court. In said judgment, learned judges of Andhra Pradesh High Court have overruled their earlier decision in Kishanlal Haricharan v. ITO [1971] 82 ITR 660. We are fully in agreement with reasons given by learned judges of Andhra Pradesh High Court in ITO v. Secunderabad Tin Industries [1978] 113 ITR I (AP). In our view in facts and circumstances of case, Tribunal was justified in upholding levy of interest under s. 139(1)(iii) of Act. Hence , question referred by Tribunal is answered in affirmative, i.e., in favour of Revenue and against assessee. There will be no order as to costs. no order as to costs. *** ROOP NARAIN CONTRACTOR v. ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX