Judgment ( 1. ) THIS is an application made under Section 256 (2) of the IT Act by the IT Department (Revenue) against an order dt. 20th Nov. , 1998, passed by Tribunal in case No. RA 107/108/ind/1998 arising out of ITA Nos. 529 and 530/ind/1993, whereby the application made by the applicant/petitioner, i. e. , Revenue under Section 256 (1) of the Act has been rejected holding that no referable question of law arises out the order of Tribunal. ( 2. ) HEARD Shri R. L. Jain, learned counsel for the applicant, on the question of admission. ( 3. ) WE concur with the finding of Tribunal when it was held that no referable question of law within the meaning of Section 256 (1) of the Act is made out. We thus, also decline to call for the reference on the question proposed at the instance of Revenue. Let us see the facts. ( 4. ) IN substance, the question sought to be raised by the Revenue was in relation to imposition of penalty under Section 271b of the Act on the assessee for two assessment years in question, i. e. , 1989-90 and 1990-91 for not filing the audited accounts in time. ( 5. ) IT was held that assessee did file the audited accounts though late and the same were accepted by the authorities. The explanation offered by the assessee was also accepted being sufficient and genuine. It was on this basis, the penalty imposed for the two years in question was set aside by the CIT (A) and upheld by Tribunal. ( 6. ) IN a case of this nature, no question of law arises. Once the explanation offered by the assessee found favour with the authorities and the report was taken on record, this Court as a reference Court cannot again probe into the sufficiency of cause in filing the audit report. It is not a case of non-filing but it is a case of late filing and the same having been explained, nothing remains for the High Court to again examine the case de novo. ( 7. ) IT being a settled view of the Supreme Court that every breach howsoever technical or venial be, does not give rise to imposition of penalty. Something more than the mere breach should be noticed in the conduct of the assessee to attract the imposition of penalty. ( 7. ) IT being a settled view of the Supreme Court that every breach howsoever technical or venial be, does not give rise to imposition of penalty. Something more than the mere breach should be noticed in the conduct of the assessee to attract the imposition of penalty. No such case was noticed by the authorities. ( 8. ) WE, therefore, do not find any question of law for calling reference under Section 256 (1) of the Act. The application fails and is dismissed. No costs.