Appeal dismissed for section 50C additions and penalties upheld, penalty deletion granted.

The appeal challenging additions under section 50C of the Act and related disallowances, as well as penalties under section 271(1)(C) of the Act, was dismissed by the Tribunal. The Tribunal upheld the Assessing Officer's actions, finding the assessee failed to demonstrate why the provisions of section 50C were not applicable. However, in a separate appeal, the Tribunal allowed the appeal regarding the penalty under section 271(1)(C), directing its deletion due to the absence of concealment of income particulars.

---

---

Issues involved:
1. Upholding addition u/s 50C of the Act and related disallowance/addition
2. Imposing penalty u/s 271(1)(C) of the Act
3. Denial of claimed deduction u/s 54F of the Act

Analysis:
1. The assessee contested the first appellate orders upholding the AO's actions in making additions u/s 50C of the Act and related disallowances, as well as imposing penalties u/s 271(1)(C) of the Act. The AO valued the property sold at Rs.14,90,000 based on stamp valuation authority's assessment, while the assessee declared Rs.14,00,000. The AO also denied claimed deduction u/s 54F, stating the property bought was a vacant plot. The AO calculated long term capital gain at Rs.4,02,189, adopting the sale consideration of Rs.14,90,000 u/s 50C of the Act. The Tribunal found no reason to interfere as the assessee failed to show why provisions of 50C were not applicable, thus rejecting the appeal.

2. The AO did not accept the claimed indexed cost of acquisition due to lack of supporting evidence. The AO estimated the expenses allocation into different years, which the assessee agreed to during assessment. The Tribunal upheld the AO's action, stating the assessee had no grounds to challenge it, having consented during assessment. The claimed deduction u/s 54F was denied as the investment was in a vacant plot, not a residential house. Since the assessee failed to provide further evidence, the Tribunal upheld the first appellate order, rejecting the appeal on this ground as well.

3. In another appeal, the assessee challenged the penalty u/s 271(1)(C) imposed on the additions/disallowances. The Tribunal found that the AO had used deemed provisions u/s 50C to determine the property's consideration and estimated the indexed cost of acquisition. The denial of deduction u/s 54F was based on information provided by the assessee. The Tribunal concluded there was no concealment of income particulars to justify the penalty, thus directing its deletion and allowing the appeal.

In conclusion, ITA No. 4646/Del/2011 was dismissed, while ITA No. 4647/Del/2011 was allowed, with the penalty under section 271(1)(C) being deleted.

---