Sabyasachi Mukharjee, J. - (1.) The Tribunal has referred to us the following question : " Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in upholding the orders dated 15th February, 1968, passed by the Income-tax Officer under Section 154 of the I.T. Act, 1961 ? "
(2.) The assessee is a firm registered under the Act. The assessment years are 1963-64 and 1964-65.
(3.) As there was delay of two months in filing the returns of income for each of the years under reference, the ITO imposed penalty under Section 271(1)(a) of the Act, vide his orders both dated 16th November, 1967. The ITO worked out the quantum of penalty on the basis of the assessed tax payable by the assessee as a registered firm. Against the said orders of the ITO, the assessee preferred appeals before the AAC. Pending the said appeals, the ITO noticed that the quantum of penalty worked out by him was not in accordance with the provisions of Section 271(2) of the Act, Inasmuch as he had worked out the quantum of penalty on the basis of the assessed tax payable by the assessee as a registered firm instead of treating it as an unregistered firm for this limited purpose, he, therefore, enquired of the assessee whether it had any objection to the rectification of the obvious mistake in the calculation of the quantum of penalty imposable under Section 271(1)(a) read with Section 271(2) of the Act. On 23rd January, 1968, the ITO made the following noting in the order sheet : " Sri Jirji Thakersay appears to say that the assessee has no objection to rectification in the matter of calculation of penalty Under Section 271(1)(a) which is apparent from record ".;