https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=6564 Penalty under section 271(1)(c) is not automatic and requires proof of concealment, furnishing of inaccurate particulars, or a false or non-bona fide explanation. Where the assessee disclosed all primary facts, relied on a registered valuer, and the dispute arose only from differing expert opinions on market value, the mere existence of an alternative valuation did not establish inaccuracy or suppression. The omission to annex certain papers was also insufficient, because no undisclosed sale instance was relied upon. The penalty was therefore not exigible, and the assessment-based penalty orders were set aside. en-us Fri, 18 May 2007 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 15 Sep 2025 16:54:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=6564 Penalty under section 271(1)(c) is not automatic and requires proof of concealment, furnishing of inaccurate particulars, or a false or non-bona fide explanation. Where the assessee disclosed all primary facts, relied on a registered valuer, and the dispute arose only from differing expert opinions on market value, the mere existence of an alternative valuation did not establish inaccuracy or suppression. The omission to annex certain papers was also insufficient, because no undisclosed sale instance was relied upon. The penalty was therefore not exigible, and the assessment-based penalty orders were set aside. Case-Laws Income Tax Fri, 18 May 2007 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=6564