dispute in these appeals relates to liability of assessee for penalties under s. 271 (1) (a) of IT Act. return of income was due in these cases on 14th Jan., 1981, 24th Jan., 1981 and 13th Feb., 1981 respectively. ITO, therefore, initiated penalty proceedings under s. 271 (1) (a) of IT Act. assessee s explanation before ITO was that as result of final assessment, assessee had been granted certain refunds so that it followed that no tax was leviable. Therefore, there was no delay in filing of return. It was also contended that delay was due to non-receipt of account statement form Madras, in absence of which challani a/c cold not be finalised. ITO was of opinion that for purpose of computing penalty under s. 271 (1) (a) of he IT Act, according to s. 271 (2) where person liable to penalty is registered firm, penalty imposable shall be same as would be imposable on that firm if that firm were unregistered firm. Therefore, assessee s plea that more TDS or advance tax had been paid than amount of assessed tax, was not maintainable. Similarly, he held that if assessee had not received Challani a/c from Madras because firm consisted of three partners, one partner could go to Madras for settlement of accounts and this was not sufficient ground for delay in filing of returns. Calculating penalties as if assessee were unregistered firm, he levied same at RS. 2,045, Rs. 869 and RS. 662 respectively. All these penalties have been knocked of by AAC in appeals. Revenue has come up in second appeal before us. We have heard representatives of parties at length in these appeals. main point of controversy in these appeal relates to manner in which liability of assessee to penalty is to be determined. assessee s contention in this behalf is that according to Explanation to s. 271(1) of IT Act assessed tax means tax as reduced by sum deducted at source or paid in advance and assessed tax should be computed as if assessee were registered firm. Departments contention is that according to sub-s. (2) of s. 271 of IT Act, since assessee is liable to penalties having delayed filing of its returns and penalty is to be computed as if tax were imposable on URF. Both parties have quoted number of authorities in support of their respective contentions. For assessee reliance was placed on CIT vs. Maskara Tea Estate (1981) 21 CTR (Guj) 47: (1981) 130 ITR 955 (Guj). It was also contended that this decision had been followed by Jaipur Bench of Tribunal in ITA Nos. 374 and 375/83 decided on 26th June, 1984. For Department, reliance was placed upon CIT vs. R. Ochhavlal & Co. (1976) 105 ITR 518 (Guj) and CIT vs. Priya Gopal Bishoyee (1981) 20 CTR (Cal) 242: (1981) 127 ITR 778 (Cal). latest decision cited was CIT vs. Janata Trading Co. (1983) 37 CTR (Bom) 203: (1984) 150 ITR 676 (Bom). After carefully considering all facts of case, we are of opinion that although balance of authority appears to be in favour of Department, because Gujarat, Calcutta and Bombay High Courts have decided in favour of Department, we should not now take different view because Jaipur Bench has already taken view in favour of assessee. Apart from this, Special Bench of Tribunal considered this matter in ITA No. 198/Jp/82 which related to interest for late filing of return under s. 139 (8) of IT Act and it was held that if advance-tax paid by firm was more than assessed tax, interest could not be levied merely because interest could not be levied merely because interest was to be calculated on assessee as if it were unregistered firm and tax payable by URF would be higher. Since Jaipur Bench has taken particular view on matter, it is not desirable for us to depart form view eve if major High Court in country have taken contrary view especially when Rajasthan High Court had expressed no view in this behalf, so far. It was also argued on behalf of assessee that apart from this question, AAC has already held that there was sufficient cause for delay as it was not possible for assessee to contact different parties at different circumstances and that too at far off places for settlement of accounts. Therefore, this legal question need not detain us. If our conclusions on legal question were different, we would not agree with ultimate conclusion of AAC. No evidence was produced before ITO as to why assessee could not receive challani a/c. alteast AAC s finding in this behalf is casual. contention of assessee was that Department had not raised any ground of appeal at time of hearing. Mr. Ruhela urged that he wanted to raise ground of appeal again this finding and sought time for filing additional ground. We have not allowed adjournment because we are not inclined to disturb finding of AAC on main issue. But his casual finding on collateral issue is certainly not convincing and if our decision on legal issue were different, we would have alteast directed AAC to record clear finding on this issue after allowing assessee opportunity to lead evidence in support of its contention that it did not receive challani a/c from Madras. In view of our above discussion, we find that there is no force in these appeals, which are hereby dismissed. *** INCOME TAX OFFICER v. KASTURCHAND MADANMOHAN