ORDER While admitting the appeal, following question of law has been framed :- “Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is not justified in deleting the penalty imposed under Section 271(1)(c) on the ground that the assessee was in distressed and filed inaccurate particulars of income?” 2. A bare perusal of the order passed by the Tribunal will reveal that the Tribunal has not set aside the penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act of 1961 only on the ground that the assessee was in distressed condition and, therefore, filed inaccurate particulars of the income whereas the Tribunal has given reason for setting aside the penalty which is mentioned in para 5 which reads as under :- “On going through the penalty order, we find that even though the amount of Rs. 850672/- has been mentioned there is discussion only in respect of 1,55,117/- referred to above. In the appellate order also there is no discussion as regards the balance amount of Rs. 5,43,555/-. It is not clear whether the assessee company were specifically asked to explain the reasons for not making the payment in time in respect of Rs. 5,43,555/-.” 3. Therefore, the Tribunal gave reason for setting aside the order of penalty. However, after giving this reason, the Tribunal has only taken note of the arguments of the assessee's representative that management of the assessee was in distressful state of mind during the relevant period. There is no finding of the Tribunal that because of this reason the order of penalty is wrong and mere recording of statement of the assessee's representative has been misunderstood to be a finding recorded by the Tribunal. In this case, the assessee has claimed the expenditure of amount of liability of the interest accrued which, in fact, was found that he did not pay within the financial year. However, for that purpose the assessee was not asked to furnish explanation etc. was the reason given by the Tribunal, therefore, in our opinion in fact the Tribunal committed no mistake in allowing the appeal of the assessee and in fact in this appeal no question of law is involved and question of law as framed is because of misreading of the order passed by the Tribunal wherein only contention of the assessee's representative has been recorded with respect to the distressful state of mind of the assessee. 4. In this case, we are not impressed with the submission of the learned counsel for the revenue that the provision provides for penalty upon mere giving wrong particulars and this fact is admitted fact. 5. In view of the reason given by the Tribunal, we do not find any force in the submission of the learned counsel for the revenue to accept the mechanical reading of the said Section only which is in isolation to the facts of the case, therefore, this Tax Appeal is dismissed.