Penalty for valuation-based addition not justified where sale consideration was fully disclosed and concealment was not shown.

Where the sale deed and return disclosed the consideration received, and the addition arose only from substitution of a higher deemed value based on stamp valuation and a valuation report, concealment of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars was not established for penalty purposes. On those peculiar facts, penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 was held unjustified, and the Tribunal's deletion of penalty was sustained. The broader question on the deeming provision was left open for an appropriate case.

---

---

Issues: Whether penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 was leviable on the facts of the case where the declared sale consideration was accepted by the assessee and the addition arose from adoption of a higher deemed value for transfer.

Analysis: The sale deed disclosed the consideration received, and the dispute arose only because the transfer value was examined with reference to the stamp valuation and valuation report. On those facts, the mere reference of the matter for valuation and the resulting addition did not establish concealment of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars. The broader question relating to the deeming provision was left open for consideration in an appropriate case.

Conclusion: Penalty under Section 271(1)(c) was not justified on the peculiar facts, and the issue was decided in favour of the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The appeal failed, and the penalty deletion by the Tribunal was sustained without deciding the larger legal question on the deeming provision.

Ratio Decidendi: Where the return and sale deed disclose the consideration and the addition results only from valuation-based substitution of consideration, concealment or inaccurate particulars is not established for imposing penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961.

---