2022 (1) TMI 688

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....milar basing on the same identical facts. Therefore, with the consent of both the parties, we proceed to hear all these three appeals together and to pass a consolidated order for the sake of convenience. 3. First, we shall take up appeal in ITA No. 826/PUN/2018 for A.Y. 2008-09. 4. The assessee raised four grounds of appeal amongst which the only issue emanates for our consideration is as to whether the CIT(A) is justified in confirming the penalty imposed by the AO u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act in the facts and circumstances of the case. 5. Heard both the parties and perused the material available on record. We note that the assessee is a registered partnership firm engaged in the business of trading of steel material. A survey was c....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... penalty of Rs. 16,45,000/- was imposed u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act. The CIT(A) in its composite order observed the admission of additional income is not voluntary and it is pursuant only to positive identification of inaccurate particulars in respect of bogus purchases by the AO, thereby, he confirmed the action of AO in imposing impugned penalty amount u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act. 6. We note that under similar circumstances for A.Ys. 2006-07 and 2007-08, the imposition of penalty which was confirmed by the CIT(A) and is challenged, the ITAT deleted the penalty imposed u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act vide its order dated 19-08-2019 in assessee‟s own case in ITA Nos. 432 & 433/PUN/2019. The relevant portion at Para No. 6 reproduced here-inbe....