2015 (2) TMI 1308

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... nt appeal has been preferred by the assessee against the order dated 16.11.2010 of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [(hereinafter referred to as CIT(A)] relevant to assessment year 2003-04 in relation to imposition of penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act. 2. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee originally filed its return of income declaring inter alia the r .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... upon the assessee. 3. The Ld. CIT(A) confirmed the said penalty. The assessee is, thus, in appeal before us. 4. We have heard the rival contentions of the Ld. Representatives of both the parties and have also gone through the records. The Ld. A.R. of the assessee has stated that in the past such rental income from warehousing premises was treated as business income. However, in the reopened as .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ssee had deliberately shown the income under a wrong head but under a bonafide belief that the income of the assessee was assessable as business income. In view of this, we do not think it to be a case for levy of penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act. The penalty levied by lower authorities is therefore ordered to be deleted. 5. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is hereby allowed. .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X