Held that the increase of value by the Assessing Officer in the full value consideration did not amount either to concealment of particulars of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. The additions made on the value of the Deputy Registrar’s office being the deemed value and the additions on such deemed value accepted by the assessee could not be said to be furnishing of inaccurate particulars for levy of penalty of concealment under section 271(1)(c). The penalty levied by the Assessing Officer under section 271(1)(c) of the Act was not sustainable.(AY.2012-13)