D. V. JUNNARKAR, A. M.: These two appeals are filed by assessee against orders of AAC upholding penalties of Rs. 800 and Rs. 1,762 levied by ITO under s. 10 of CDS (ITP) Act for two years under consideration. For first year under consideration ITO observed that assessee had made compulsory deposit payment of Rs. 3,200 on 16th Dec., 1976, which according to him was due on or before 15th Dec., 1976, which according to him was due on or before 15th Dec., 1976. For next year under consideration, payment required to be made was Rs. 7,050 on or before 15th Dec., 1978, which was paid on 26th Dec., 1978. In absence of any satisfactory explanation, ITO held assessee to be in default under s. 10 of CDS (ITP) Act and proceeded to levy penalty of Rs. 800 for first year and Rs. 1,762 for second year under consideration. Having failed before AAC, assessee has filed present appeals before Tribunal. It was submitted that delay for first year was of only one day. It was explained that this was totally inadvertent delay due to remissness. For second year, delay was of 11 days. But is was submitted that assessee could not be treated as in default as compulsory deposit payment required to be made was Rs. 7,050 under s. 10 of CDS (ITP) Act, 1974. Since payment was not less then 75 per cent of amount due, which was actually Rs. 5,300, there was no shortfall in payment. In support some, decisions of Tribunal are placed before us, where under similar circumstances, penalties levied under s. 10 of CDS (ITP) Act, 1974 have been cancelled. ld. Departmental Representative has relied on orders of authorities below. We have carefully considered facts and circumstances of case. We find that s. 10(1) of CDS (ITP) Act, 1974 reads as under: "10. Penalty for failure to make compulsory deposit: (1) If, in relation to assessment year referred to in sub-s. (1) of s. 3, any person who is liable to make compulsory deposit (being person falling under cl. (a) or cl. (b) of sub- s. (3) of s. (4) (a) has failed to made compulsory deposit within time allowed under s. 5, or (b) has made compulsory deposit within such time but deposit to made falls short of requisite amount, ITO, shall, by order in writing, direct that such person shall pay, by way of penalty, sum (i) which, in case referred to in cl. (a), shall be equal to twenty five per cent of compulsory deposit which he is liable to make; and (ii) which, in case referred to in cl. (b), shall be equal to twenty five per cent of amount by which compulsory deposit made by him falls short of requisite amount." For first year under consideration default on part of assessee is merely technical. Though payment made was of full amount s required under Act, there was delay of one day only. In circumstances, we shall cancel penalty. In respect of second year under consideration, however, we find that ITO did not levy penalty only for short-fall in quantum of compulsory deposit paid on behalf of assessee also for delay of 11 days. We agree with ld. representative for assessee that there is not short-fall in payment made by assessee. But delay is of 11 days for which no satisfactory explanation is furnished. In our opinion, in circumstances, it will be fair to sustain penalty of Rs. 250. In result, penalty for first year under consideration is cancelled whereas penalty is reduced to Rs. 250 for second years under consideration. balance of penalty will be remitted if collected. In result, appeal for first year is allowed whereas appeal for second year is partly allowed. *** YUSUF MIYAJI v. INCOME TAX OFFICER