This is appeal of revenue for assessment year 1980-81 against order of AAC cancelling penalty imposed by ITO under section 273(1)(b) of Income-tax Act, 1961 (' Act '). This appeal was taken up along with two other similar appeals of same counsel being IT Appeal No. 176 (Chd.) of 1983-ITO v. Smt. Anita Gupta and IT Appeal No. 181 (Chd.) 1983- ITO v. Tej Ram Brij Lal. relevant facts in all three appeals are undisputedly similar and AAC has passed similar order in three cases. As result, our decision in this appeal will also govern disposal of other two appeals. 2. All three appeals are disposed of after considering written submissions and papers included in paper book filed on behalf of each assessee and hearing departmental representative. 3. relevant facts in each case as are found from orders of lower authorities and also from statement of facts included in each paper book are that each assessee paid advance tax by due date 15-9-1979 on basis of income assessed for assessment year 1979-80 but no statement as required b y section 209A(1) of Act was filed in each case. ITO has chosen to penalise each assessee for this failure to file statement as required by section 209A(1)(a). We find that each appeal deserves to be decided on short ground whether in this factual background penalty could be imposed by ITO. We do not consider it necessary to go into questions considered by AAC to cancel penalties in three cases. In our view, conclusion of AAC is clearly sustainable on basis of position of law settled by Supreme Court decision in famous case of Hindustan Steel Ltd. v. State of Orissa [1972] 83 ITR 26. We are tempted to quote relevant paragraph from headnotes: " order imposing penalty for failure to carry out statutory obligation is result of quasi-criminal proceeding, and penalty will not ordinarily be imposed unless party obliged either acted deliberately in defiance of law or was guilty of conduct contumacious or dishonest, or acted in conscious disregard of its obligation. Penalty will not also be imposed merely because it is lawful to do so. Whether penalty should be imposed for failure to perform statutory obligation is matter of discretion of authority to be exercised judicially and on consideration of all relevant circumstances. Even if minimum penalty is prescribed, authority competent to impose penalty will be justified in refusing to impose penalty, when there is technical or venial breach of provisions of Act or where breach flows from bona fide belief that offender is not liable to act in manner prescribed by statute." On facts and in circumstances of three cases in hand what else it is but case of mere technical or venial breach of provisions of law? object of inserting section 209A(1) was to ensure that assessee already assessed also voluntarily calculated and paid advance tax due. assessee had paid advance tax due for first instalment and had merely failed to file statement. Later on assessee filed two estimates on account of increase in income liable to advance tax. In these circumstances, we see no justification on part of ITO to invoke penal provisions of section 273(1)(b), therefore, penalties imposed in all three cases are unwarranted and for this reasoning have to be held to be rightly cancelled by AAC. It is unnecessary to go into second part of revenue's ground of appeal No. 1 for purpose of disposal of these appeals. 4. In result, appeal of revenue fails and is dismissed. *** INCOME TAX OFFICER v. PARMOD KUMAR