Judgment ( 1. ) APPELLANT has filed this appeal under Section 260a of the IT Act, 1961 (for short, the Act), against the order dt. 27th May, 2003 of the Tribunal passed in ITA No. 893/ind/1994 raising the following question : "whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Tribunal was justified in holding that the penalty under Section 271 (1) (c) of the IT Act, 1961, is not attracted even though there was enough material on record to hold that penalty was leviable ?" ( 2. ) THE AO had imposed penalty against the respondent-assessee under Section 271 (1) (c) of the Act, but the CIT{a), in appeal, had cancelled penalty against which the Revenue have approached the Tribunal in appeal. The Tribunal observed that the accounts suffered from totalling mistake committed by munim and, therefore, it upheld the order passed by the CIT (A ). ( 3. ) LEARNED senior counsel has referred to the decision of the Allahabad High Court in Pahulal Ved Prakash v. CIT, (1990) 186 ITR 589 (All) in support of his contention that mistake committed by munim is not a ground to escape from the consequence of a penalty under Section 271 (1) (c) of the Act. In the said decision, there was material to show that figures were manipulated with the consent and knowledge of the partner of the assessee. In the present case, there is not even iota of evidence to suggest that mistake in the total was with the consent and knowledge of the partner to indicate that it was a deliberate act. Since in the discussion the CIT (A) and Tribunal have both found that there was no ground for imposing penalty, no case arises for interference in this appeal under Section 260a of the Act. The appeal is accordingly dismissed.