1988 (11) TMI 42

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... me-tax Appellate Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench, has referred the following question for the opinion of this court : " Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal erred in holding that the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax was not justified in levying penalty under the Explanation to section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ?" For the assessment year 1 .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... to Rs. 595 per metric ton and, on this basis, claimed that no penalty should be levied. However, the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner rejected the argument after observing that the same plea had been taken before the Tribunal and had been rejected and imposed penalty of Rs. 22,100. On appeal, the Tribunal cancelled the penalty on the reasoning that although in the quantum appeal he was not able .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ich is rebuttable, we are of the opinion that by producing documentary evidence that the closing stock was sold by the assessee at rates varying between Rs. 480 to Rs. 595 per metric ton, the presumption stood rebutted by the evidence led during the penalty proceedings. It is true that certain observations of the Tribunal in regard to the interpretation of section 271(1)(c) of the Act and the Expl .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X