TMI Blog2014 (12) TMI 1294X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 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 head ‘profits and gains of business’ and the claim of the assessee was consistently accepted by the Revenue. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Karunakara Rao, AM Shri Amit Shukla, JM Appellant by: Shri Akhilendra Yadav Respondent by: S/Shri Dilip J. Thakkar 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 sectio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rty . 3. The CIT(A) deleted the addition in all the three years relying on various decision. The contents of para 3.3 of the impugned order is 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. Be ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d. In the instant case we find that the assessee is consistently furnishing relevant receipts under the head profits and gains of business and the claim 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 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
