JUDGMENT B.C. Verma, J. 1. Penalty was sought to be imposed for filing an incorrect return under the Wealth-tax Act. The matter went to the Appellate Tribunal which ultimately found that the mistake was on the part of counsel before whom the assessee had placed all the relevant papers. Furthermore, as soon as counsel realised the mistake, he immediately intimated the Appellate Tribunal. On these facts, the Appellate Tribunal concluded that the incorrect statement in the wealth-tax return was bona fide and, therefore, the assessee could not be visited with penalty under Section 18(1)(c) of the Wealth-tax Act. Consequently, no penalty can been imposed. 2. An application was made to the Tribunal for referring a question to this court under Section 27(1) of the Act. The application was rejected on the ground that no question of law arose out of the Tribunal's order. The application, therefore, has been filed in this court under Section 27(3) of the Act requiring the Tribunal to state the following question to this court for its opinion : "Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in cancelling the orders under Section 18(1)(c) of the Wealth-tax Act holding that those are not fit cases for levy of penalty." 3. Notice was issued. Respondent has caused appearance and the application is opposed. 4. We have gone through the order of the Appellate Tribunal. The order clearly indicates that the plea of bona fide mistake on the part of counsel has been accepted. The question whether the act of counsel was bona fide or not is purely a question of fact. It cannot, therefore, be said that any question of law arises so that the Tribunal can be directed to state the question to this court. The Tribunal, therefore, was absolutely justified in refusing to refer the said question to this court. 5. This application is, therefore, dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.