TMI Blog2015 (2) TMI 1308X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ssee fairly conceded to the change of head of income as proposed by the AO. There was neither furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income nor of concealment of income. We agree with the contention of the assessee that it was not a case of furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income or concealment of income. The assessee even had fairly agreed to the change of head of income during the rea ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Assessee by: Ms. Heena Doshi, A.R. Revenue by: Shri Jeetendra Kumar, D.R. ORDER Sanjay Garg, The present 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 se ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the income by the AO during the reopened assessment proceedings. The AO initiated penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) and levied penalty of ₹ 2,98,197/- 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 g ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in this case has been made because of change of head of income and not because of furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income or concealment of income. It is not a case where the assessee 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 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
