https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=70688 The Appellate Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal, upholding the CIT(A)'s decision to delete the penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the IT Act. The Tribunal found that the discrepancies in the property valuation methods did not constitute concealment or furnishing of inaccurate particulars by the assessee. It emphasized that the valuation was based on a bona fide belief supported by a registered valuer's report, and guideline values are not conclusive proof. Thus, the penalty imposed by the AO was not warranted. en-us Fri, 13 Feb 2009 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 28 Oct 2023 11:19:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=70688 The Appellate Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal, upholding the CIT(A)'s decision to delete the penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the IT Act. The Tribunal found that the discrepancies in the property valuation methods did not constitute concealment or furnishing of inaccurate particulars by the assessee. It emphasized that the valuation was based on a bona fide belief supported by a registered valuer's report, and guideline values are not conclusive proof. Thus, the penalty imposed by the AO was not warranted. Case-Laws Income Tax Fri, 13 Feb 2009 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=70688