https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=469427 Penalty under section 271(1)(c) was held unsustainable where the addition arose only from section 56(2)(x) on the difference between stated purchase price and stamp duty value. The assessee offered a plausible explanation that the property had low utility and could not fetch jantri value, and the Revenue did not disprove that explanation, show it was not bona fide, or conduct effective verification to establish concealment. As there was no finding of actual payment over and above the recorded consideration, the deeming addition alone did not justify concealment penalty. The penalty was deleted and the appeal succeeded. en-us Wed, 31 Aug 2022 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 17 Jun 2026 12:45:37 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=469427 Penalty under section 271(1)(c) was held unsustainable where the addition arose only from section 56(2)(x) on the difference between stated purchase price and stamp duty value. The assessee offered a plausible explanation that the property had low utility and could not fetch jantri value, and the Revenue did not disprove that explanation, show it was not bona fide, or conduct effective verification to establish concealment. As there was no finding of actual payment over and above the recorded consideration, the deeming addition alone did not justify concealment penalty. The penalty was deleted and the appeal succeeded. Case-Laws Income Tax Wed, 31 Aug 2022 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=469427