TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1988 (11) TMI 42
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ed by GOKAL CHAND MITAL J.-The Income-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....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the next year at rates ranging from Rs. 480 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 alt....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nitial presumption would be on the assessee which 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 interpretatio....