Sengoda Gounder HUF Vs DCIT (ITAT Chennai)
In the case of Sengoda Gounder HUF versus DCIT, the appeal was against the penalty imposed under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act. Here’s the gist of the order by the ITAT Chennai:
- Background: The case involved the sale of ancestral property by legal heirs. The assessee, Sengoda Gounder HUF, filed the income tax return for AY 2010-11, including capital gains. The Assessing Officer (AO) proposed additions based on the Registration Department’s guideline value, which was contested by the assessee. The matter went to the Tribunal, which estimated the fair market value at Rs. 1,50,000 per acre, different from both the guideline value and the assessee’s claimed value.
- Penalty Proceedings: Despite the Tribunal’s decision, the AO initiated penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) of the Act. The penalty was upheld by the CIT(A).
- Assessee’s Argument: The assessee contended that their valuation was based on an approved valuer’s report, making it a genuine claim, and thus, there was no concealment of income.
- ITAT’s Decision: The ITAT Chennai observed that differences in valuation opinions are common, and the assessee’s claim based on an approved valuer’s report cannot be deemed as concealment of income. Citing precedents from the Madras High Court and the Supreme Court, the ITAT ruled that an incorrect claim in law does not constitute furnishing inaccurate particulars.
- Conclusion: In light of the above, the ITAT directed the deletion of the penalty levied under section 271(1)(c) of the Act.
The decision underscores the principle that genuine differences in valuation opinions do not amount to concealment of income, especially when based on reports by approved valuers.
FULL TEXT OF THE ORDER OF ITAT CHENNAI
Paid content
Become a Basic or Premium Member, or log in if you are already a Basic or Premium member.
