9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (12) TMI 1294X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... evant information in the return of income relating to the impugned receipts, which were brought to tax under the head ‘house property’ by the AO. Thus it is a case of change of head of income and there is no default so far as disclosure of relevant information in the return of income is concerned. In the instant case we find that the assessee is consistently furnishing relevant receipts under the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Rajesh P. Shah O R D E R Per D. Karunakara Rao, AM These are three appeals by the Revenue filed against the order of the CIT(A)-32, Mumbai and they pertain to assessment years 2004-05, 2005-06 and 2006-07 in connection with penalty levied under section 271(1)(c). 2. At the outset the learned counsel for the assessee mentioned that the assessee received certain receipts from letting out of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... relevant here. Further the learned counsel for the assessee mentioned that mere change of head of income do not attract concealment penalty and for this proposition the counsel relied upon the jurisdictional High Court judgement in the case of CIT vs. Bennett Coleman & Co. Ltd. 87 DTR 0368. 4. The learned D.R. relied upon the penalty order passed by the AO. 5. After hearing both the parties and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... laim of the assessee was consistently accepted by the Revenue. Assessee offered the same for these years also but the AO changed the head of income only in view of the subsequent judgement in the case of Shambhu Investment (P) Ltd. (supra). Therefore, there is nothing malafide from assessee's side. The AO has not information to demonstration that the claim of the assessee in the return of income i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
