https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=186970 The appeal was filed against the penalty imposed under section 271(1)(c) on an addition made under section 50C of the IT Act. The penalty was levied for willful ignorance in paying capital gains tax properly. The CIT(A) upheld the penalty, deeming the valuation by the Stamp Valuation Authority as the full value of consideration received. However, the ITAT Accountant Member disagreed, stating the assessee can request valuation by the Departmental Valuation Officer. It was held that mere claim based on legal options does not constitute concealment. Citing the decision in CIT vs. Reliance Petroproducts, the penalty was canceled as the explanation provided was deemed bona fide. en-us Thu, 08 Jul 2010 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 05 Oct 2016 18:49:27 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=186970 The appeal was filed against the penalty imposed under section 271(1)(c) on an addition made under section 50C of the IT Act. The penalty was levied for willful ignorance in paying capital gains tax properly. The CIT(A) upheld the penalty, deeming the valuation by the Stamp Valuation Authority as the full value of consideration received. However, the ITAT Accountant Member disagreed, stating the assessee can request valuation by the Departmental Valuation Officer. It was held that mere claim based on legal options does not constitute concealment. Citing the decision in CIT vs. Reliance Petroproducts, the penalty was canceled as the explanation provided was deemed bona fide. Case-Laws Income Tax Thu, 08 Jul 2010 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=186970