TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2019 (3) TMI 805
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
..... 2. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law in deleting the penalty of Rs. 52,32,068/- imposed by the AO u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act. 3. The appellant craves leave to add, amend any / all the grounds of appeal before or during the course of hearing of the appeal. 3. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee filed the return of income on 30.9.2011 declaring income at Rs. NIL and it was processed u/s 143(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred as "Act") and later the case was picked up for scrutiny by issue of notice u/s 143(2) of the Act on 10.09.2012 and notice u/s. 142(1) of the Act alongwith questionnaire dated 14.6.2013 was issued and qagain notice u/s. 142(1) of the Act dated ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ange in the head of income in assessment cannot be construed as concealment of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars of income and thus does not attract any penalty. Against the order of the Ld. CIT(A), the Revenue is in appeal before the Tribunal. 4. Ld. DR relied upon the Order of the AO and reiterated the contentions raised in the grounds of appeal. 5. Ld. counsel for the assessee relied upon the order of the Ld. CIT(A) and filed a Paper Book containing pages 1-56 by mentioning the case laws by which the case of the assessee is squarely covered. 6. We have heard both the parties and perused the records especially the impugned order as well as case laws cited by the Ld. Counsel for the assessee. We find that Ld. CIT(A) has elabor....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....siness income and disallowed depreciation. The AO thereafter has imposed penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act on the difference of the returned income and the assessed income. 4.1.2 The appellant has submitted that even if the returned business income/loss was assessed as income from house property with regard to the rental income and related services there is mere change in the head of income and computation was made accordingly by the AO and that in any view of the matter this cannot be considered as concealment of income or furnishing of any inaccurate particulars of income by the appellant as all the facts were available on record. It has also been submitted that the opinion of the AO in treating the business income as income from house p....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....2012 51 SOT 133 (Delhi) (URO), DCIT vs. Max India Limited ITA No. 94/2011, Rai Industrial Power Pvt. Ltd. Vs. DCIT ITA no. 4862/Del/2013, ACIT vs. Global Associates ITA no. 4819/Del/2012 & 4942/Del/2011, the principle laid down by the various courts including Hon'ble Supreme Court is that where there is no finding that any details supplied by the assessee in its return are found to be incorrect or erroneous or false there is no question of inviting the penalty under section 271 (1 )(c); and that to attract penalty, the details supplied in the return must not be accurate, not exact or correct, not according to the truth or erroneous; and mere change in the head of income in assessment cannot be construed as concealment of income or furnishin....