Tribunal held that the assessee had explained before the Assessing Officer and the Commissioner (Appeals) that the business activity of the assessee was investment in real estate business and the activity constituted the business activity. The Assessing Officer and the Commissioner (Appeals) had proceeded on the basis that there was no income during the year 2015-16 and therefore there was no business activity, but this was a fallacy and could not be taken as the basis for imposing penalty. Thus, the provisions of section 271(1)(c) were not applicable in the present case. Hence, the penalty order were not sustainable.( AY.2015-16)