TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1978 (2) TMI 49
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e-tax, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal has referred the following question of law for our opinion: "Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, there was material on record to justify the finding of the Tribunal that the assessee could not be charged with the guilt of gross or wilful neglect and that penalty could not be levied under the Expln. to s. 271(1)(c) of the I.T. Act, 1....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... fraud or gross or wilful neglect. The explanation offered did not find favour with the Income-tax. Consequently, he rejected the same and imposed the penalty in all the three years. Against the orders of the IAC of Income-tax, the assessee-firm went in appeal to the Tribunal. After a review of the entire circumstances and the materials on record, the Tribunal hold that the explanation offered by....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... erred in holding that in a case where an assessment is a best judgment assessment, the provisions of imposition of penalty laid down under s. 271 did not apply. According to his submission, as the Tribunal fell into error in taking the said view, it also misconstrued the circumstances and wrongly found that the explanation offered by the assessee-firm was satisfactory and worthy of acceptance. We....