Differences in Approved Valuer’s Opinion Not Concealment of Income: ITAT Chennai

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:

1. 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.
2. 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).

Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.