These cross-appeals arise out of order dated 1-1-1983 of learned AAC. 2. For assessment year 1975-76, in question, due date for filing wealth-tax return was 30-6-1975, but it was filed by assessee only on 3-3- 1979 after delay of 44 months. Therefore, penalty proceedings were initiated by WTO, against assessee under section 18(1)(a) of Wealth-tax Act, 1957 ('the Act'). In explanation dated 12-11-1982, assessee stated that return could not be filed due to illness of her elder daughter, Kumari Shalini Sondhi, who was suffering from 'Lymphoblastic Leukemia' since 1973. She was initially admitted in All India Institute of Medical Sciences (AIIMS), New Delhi, and since there was no treatment in country, she was treated at Mount Sinai Hospital, New York, from 6-9-1973 till end of December 1973. Thereafter, she was looked after by AIIMS, New Delhi. She had relapse in beginning of June 1975 which necessitated her confinement to hospital till end of July 1975 and was treated in consultation with US doctors. She had off and on to be admitted in hospital for blood transfusion in September, October and November 1975, and she expired on 30-11-1975 in Holy Family Hospital, Okhla, New Delhi. According to assessee, she was not in fit mental state of affairs during illness of her daughter and even thereafter for long time. It was, therefore, claimed that there was reasonable cause for delay in filing return which was filed voluntarily. However, WTO found that assessee had not filed any application for extension of time. She also found that although assessee's daughter died in November 1975, return was filed on 3-3-1979. Therefore, she held that default on part of assessee was quite clear and patent one. Accordingly, she imposed penalty of Rs. 9,988 for delay of 44 months. 3. In appeal, learned AAC found that assessee had filed her revised income-tax return for assessment year 1975-76 on 11-1-1978 and, therefore, she held that there was reasonable cause for assessee for not filing return of wealth only till 11-1-1978. She held that for period subsequent to 11-1-1978, no reasonable cause had been explained or proved. Accordingly, WTO was directed to recalculate penalty on basis of default for period from 11-1-1978 to 3-3-1979. 4. assessee is aggrieved and has come up in appeal before us, insofar as imposition of penalty has been upheld for period from 11-1-1978 to 3-3-1979, whereas department is aggrieved since penalty imposed by WTO has been reduced. Shri Hardatta Sharma, learned counsel for assessee, placing reliance on assessee's reply dated 12-11-1982 and papers relating to illness of assessee's daughter, submitted that there was reasonable cause for delay in filing return for entire period. He, therefore, argued that no penalty should have been sustained by learned AAC. He also submitted that mere failure to file return within time allowed, did not make assessee liable to penalty and that there had to be contumacious or deliberate default. He also argued that onus was on department to establish that assessee had no reasonable cause for not filing return within time. Reference in this connection, was made by him to following decisions: Shakuntla Mehra v. CWT [1976] 102 ITR 301 (Delhi), Jagannath Singh v. CWT [1980] 122 ITR 114 (Pat.) and Rani Indra Devi v. CWT [1983] 15 TAXMAN 159 (All.). He also referred to decision of Supreme Court in CWT v. Suresh Seth [1981] 129 ITR 328 for proposition that failure to file return on due date was not continuing wrong and that quantum of penalty had to be determined on basis of law, in force, on last date on which return had to be filed. He also argued that learned AAC had erred in not considering assessee's submission that value of quota rights should not have been included in wealth for penalty purposes. 5. On other hand, Shri S.K. Bansal, learned departmental representative, kly supported penalty order, passed by WTO. He submitted that since original return of income-tax could be filed by assessee o n 3-9-1975 even during illness of assessee's daughter, wealth-tax return could as well, have been filed by assessee by due date, i.e., 30-6- 1975. He also submitted that details of travelling expenses filed by assessee during assessment proceedings on income-tax side, showed that assessee did business in Bombay during period in question and, therefore, there was no reasonable cause for delay. He also referred to Full Bench decision of Hon'ble Punjab and Haryana High Court in CIT v. Full Bench decision of Hon'ble Punjab and Haryana High Court in CIT v. Patram Dass Raja Ram Beri [1981] 132 ITR 671, for proposition that deliberate defiance of law need not be proved for levy of penalty for delay in filing return. In reply, Shri Sharma, for assessee, submitted that even though wordings of section 271(1)(a) of Income-tax Act, 1961 ('the 1961 Act') and section 18(1)(a) of 1957 Act were in pari materia, no decision had been cited on behalf of revenue specifically with reference to section 18(1)(a). 6. We have considered rival submissions as also various decisions referred to above. first question which arises for consideration is whether doctrine of mens rea is attracted in case of proceedings under section 18(1)(a). No doubt, Hon'ble Delhi High Court held in case of Shakuntla Mehra that there had to be contumacious or deliberate default under section 18(1)(a), and view expressed by other High Courts in following cases, appeared to be similar V. L. Dutt v. CIT [1976] 103 ITR 634 (Mad.), Addl. CIT v. I. M. Patel & Co. [1977] 107 ITR 214 (Guj.) (FB) and Rani Indra Devi's case. However, contrary view has been expressed by High Courts of Madhya Pradesh, Kerala and Punjab and Haryana, in following cases, respectively-- Nemichand Ganeshmal v. CIT [1980] 124 ITR 438, CIT v. Gujarat Travancore Agency [1976] 103 ITR 149 (FB) and Patram Dass Raja Ram Beri's case. However, controversy can be taken to stand resolved on account of clear decision of Supreme Court in R.S. Joshi v. Ajit Mills Ltd. AIR 1977 SC 2279. It has been field in that case that mens rea is not necessary ingredient of all penalty proceedings in taxing statutes. This decision of Supreme Court has been noticed in Full Bench decision of Hon'ble Punjab and Haryana High Court in case of Patram Dass Raja Ram Beri and, therefore, before imposition of penalty under section 18(1)(a) what is required is that assessee had without reasonable cause failed to furnish return. What is 'without reasonable cause' is matter which has to be determined on facts and in circumstances of each case. 7. next point relates to burden of proof. In case of Shakuntla Mehra, it was held by Hon'ble Delhi High Court that onus is on department to establish that assessee had no reasonable cause for not filing return within time. In case of CIT v. Gangaram Chapolia [1976] 103 ITR 613 (Ori.) (FB), it was held that burden of proof of reasonable cause is on assessee as matter is within his personal knowledge and that this burden can be discharged by preponderance of probabilities as in civil case and not necessarily by proof beyond reasonable doubt. In case of I.M. Patel & Co., it was held that it is for revenue to establish as ingredient that failure in particular case was without reasonable cause and that once this initial burden, which may be slight, has been discharged, it is for assessee to show as in civil case on balance of probabilities, that he had reasonable cause for failing to file return within time specified. In case of Rani Indra Devi, Hon'ble Allahabad High Court held that initial burden is always on department and that it is only after its burden is discharged that assessee is required to prove facts which are in his special knowledge. In present case, on facts, as they existed, initial burden in above sense can be said to have been discharged by department and, therefore, thereafter burden of establishing facts which were specially in knowledge of assessee regarding reasonable cause, shifted to assessee. In any case, since all material is already on record, we have only to see as to whether on basis of material on record, there was reasonable cause for delay in filing return and, if so, for what period. 8. Reference may also be made to decision of Supreme Court in Suresh Seth's case since reference was made to it on behalf of assessee. In that case, it was held by Supreme Court that non-performance of any of acts, mentioned in section 18(1)(a), gives rise to single default and to single penalty, measure of which, however, is geared up to time-lag between last date on which return had to be filed and date on which it is filed. It was held that default, if any, committed, is committed on last date allowed to file return and default cannot be one committed every month thereafter. words 'for every month during which default continued' were held to indicate only multiplier to be adopted in determining quantum of penalty and did not have effect of making default in question continuing one. However, reference to law applicable being that in force on last date on which return had to be filed, was made with reference to computation of penalty and not with reference to levy or leviability of penalty. 9. We may, therefore, now examine material on record regarding existence of reasonable cause for default. material on record clearly shows that from August 1973, assessee's eldest daughter remained continuously and seriously in which necessitated her hospitalisation at AIIMS, New Delhi, and in Holy Family Hospital, Okhla, New Delhi which ultimately resulted in her death on 30-11-1975. Thus, there can be no doubt that there was reasonable cause for delay up to 30-11-1975. For period, thereafter, case of assessee was that she was mentally disturbed and could not attend to her business and other affairs. So far as this point is concerned, we find that though assessee had filed her original income-tax return for assessment year 1975-76 on 3-9-1979, it was filed on estimated basis only. That return was not accompanied by statement of accounts, such s profit and loss account and balance sheet, etc., because due to circumstances beyond control of assessee, mentioned above, account books could not be finalised. assessee had filed her revised income-tax return for assessment year 1975-76 on 11-1-1978. There was covering letter attached to that revised return, copy of which has been placed on paper book. That letter states that as assessee was busy looking after her eldest daughter, she could not attend to business affairs and, accordingly, return on estimate basis had been originally submitted. letter mentions that revised return was based on finalised accounts. Thus, if revised income-tax return could be filed on 11-1-1978, it stands to reason that t h e wealth-tax return could also have been filed on 11-1-1978 as only material which would have been required for filing same, would have been t h e information contained in income-tax return. There is nothing on record to show as to what was other material which assessee could not collect up to 11-1-1978 for filing wealth-tax return. Therefore, in our view, learned AAC was fully justified in holding that reasonable cause for delay in filing return was established only up to 11-1-1978 and not thereafter. In this connection it may also be mentioned that contentions raised on behalf of revenue that assessee was visiting Bombay for purposes of business on 26-4-1976, 26-5-1976, etc., or that she was in position to file her return are not established. We, therefore, uphold finding of learned AAC that though penalty was leviable against assessee under section 18(1)(a), period of delay with reference to which penalty was to be calculated was period after 11-1-1978 and up to 3-3-1979 when return was filed. 10. [This para is not reproduced here as it involves minor issue.] 11. In result, appeal filed by assessee as well as appeal filed by department, both fail and are dismissed. *** MRS. SUDERSHAN SONDHI v. WEALTH-TAX OFFICER