( 1 ) THE Income tax Appellate Tribunal has stated the following question for the opinion of this court under Section 256 (1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 : "whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was legally justified in confirming the Appellate Assistant Commissioners interpretation of the words assessed tax in the case of a registered firm for the purposes of levy of penalty under Section 271 (1) (a) of the income-tax Act, 1961?" ( 2 ) THE assessee is a partnership firm. The assessment year concerned herein is 1973-74. The assessee did not file its return within the time prescribed ; it filed it with a delay of thirteen months. On January 2, 1976, the Income-tax Officer made an assessment order determining its income and tax payable and also continuing the registration since the relevant papers were found to be in order. The assessment order, however, says that penalty proceedings under Section 271 (1) (a) of the Act have been initiated separately. A notice was served upon the respondent to show cause why penalty should not be levied upon it under Section 271 (1) (a) of the Act. The assessee failed to submit any explanation. Accordingly, the Income-tax Officer levied penalty. The relevant portion reads thus ; "i am thus satisfied that the assessee has without reasonable cause, failed to furnish the return of income with the time allowed under Section 139 (1 ). I, therefore, impose a penalty of Rs. 2,200 for 13 months default at 2 per cent. per month of tax payable for each month of default. Issue notice of demand and challan. " ( 3 ) THE assessee appealed to the Appellate Assistant Commissioner, Certain explanation was put forward by the assessee for the delay but it was not accepted. However, the penalty was deleted by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner on the following reasoning : "learned counsel had another argument, namely, that the calculation of the penalty was incorrect. He pointed out to the provisions of Section 271 (1) (a) (i) and the Explanation thereto. He says that assessed tax means tax as reduced by the sum, if any, deducted at source under chapter XVII-B, or paid in advance under Chapter XVII-C In the present case, the tax chargeable was Rs. 1,687 and after deducting tax paid in advance to the tune of Rs. He says that assessed tax means tax as reduced by the sum, if any, deducted at source under chapter XVII-B, or paid in advance under Chapter XVII-C In the present case, the tax chargeable was Rs. 1,687 and after deducting tax paid in advance to the tune of Rs. 1,518 the balance tax payable came to Rs. 169 only, therefore, the penalty levied at Rs. 2,200 was excessive. There is sufficient merit in this contention of the appellant and considering the fact that penal interest to the tune of Rs. 1,313 has already been charged, there is no justification for the imposition of penalty at Rs. 2,500 under Section 271 (1) (a ). The same is, therefore, cancelled. " ( 4 ) THE Department appealed to the Tribunal. It was argued that the Appellate Assistant commissioner erred in setting aside the Income-tax Officers order which calculated the penalty amount correctly by treating the assessee-firm as an unregistered firm as provided in Sub-section (2) of Section 271. This argument was rejected by the Tribunal in the following words : "we have perused the orders of the authorities below for our consideration along with the papers placed before us. We find that nowhere the Income-tax Officer has shown the calculation of the penalty treating the assessee-firm as an unregistered firm. We find that the Appellate assistant Commissioner was justified in taking into account the meaning of the word assessed tax as submitted by learned counsel for the assessee. Having regard to the facts of the case as discussed in the preceding paragraph and as such argued before us, we find that the Appellate assistant Commissioner was justified in cancelling the penalty and there is no merit in the appeal of the Revenue. In this view of the matter, we uphold the orders of the Appellate assistant Commissioner, in the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed. " ( 5 ) IT is thereupon that the Revenue applied for and obtained the present reference. In this view of the matter, we uphold the orders of the Appellate assistant Commissioner, in the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed. " ( 5 ) IT is thereupon that the Revenue applied for and obtained the present reference. ( 6 ) IT is true that Sub-section (2) of Section 271 provides that, when penalty is imposed upon a registered firm, the penalty imposable under Sub-section (1) of Section 271 "shall be the same amount as would be imposable on that firm, if that firm were an unregistered firm" but as has rightly been pointed out by "the Tribunal", there is nothing to show that the Income-tax Officer had calculated and levied the penalty of Rs. 2,200 on this basis. No attempt has been made before either authority to justify the amount on the said basis. A look at the figures in the assessment order would disclose that the basis now being suggested by the Revenue for sustaining the said amount of penalty is prima facie untenable. It is evident that the Income-tax officer had arrived at the said figure of penalty amount on some method of calculation which is not clear to us. The expression "assessed tax" has been defined by the Act to mean tax as reduced by the sum, if any, deducted at source or paid by way of advance tax, as the case may be. ( 7 ) IN the circumstances of the case, we are of the opinion that the Tribunal was justified in dismissing the Revenues appeal. In our opinion, the case turns on facts and no question of law really arises from the order of the Tribunal. Be that as it may, the question referred is answered in the affirmative, i. e. , in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue. No costs. .