https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=759749 ITAT Bangalore held that penalty u/s 271(1)(c) for concealment of income/furnishing inaccurate particulars was not imposable where capital gain computation differed due to estimation variations. The assessee computed capital gain based on estimated cost of acquisition as on 1.4.1981, while AO adopted stamp duty value from 17.11.1980 sale deed. The tribunal found no evidence of willful negligence, bogus claims, or malafide intent. Mere difference in estimation between assessee's claim and AO's adoption cannot establish concealment or inaccurate particulars. AO failed to independently examine penalty proceedings and relied solely on quantum proceedings findings. Penalty deleted in favour of assessee. en-us Wed, 05 Jun 2024 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 08 Oct 2024 07:36:41 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=759749 ITAT Bangalore held that penalty u/s 271(1)(c) for concealment of income/furnishing inaccurate particulars was not imposable where capital gain computation differed due to estimation variations. The assessee computed capital gain based on estimated cost of acquisition as on 1.4.1981, while AO adopted stamp duty value from 17.11.1980 sale deed. The tribunal found no evidence of willful negligence, bogus claims, or malafide intent. Mere difference in estimation between assessee's claim and AO's adoption cannot establish concealment or inaccurate particulars. AO failed to independently examine penalty proceedings and relied solely on quantum proceedings findings. Penalty deleted in favour of assessee. Case-Laws Income Tax Wed, 05 Jun 2024 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=759749