TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (1) TMI 1261
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ction 271(1)(c) on 12.08.2024 mechanically ignoring the fact that the Penalty Order on the issue involved was already passed under section 271(1)(c) on 16.09.2021 after receipt of the Order of the Ld CIT(A)-2, Pune, and the impugned order is liable to be quashed. 2. The Ld CIT(A) erred in not appreciating that the ITAT had not quashed the original Assessment Order dated 13.06.2014 but had only directed re-computation of disallowance out of alleged bogus purchases as per their direction and the Ld Assessing Officer was not justified in passing fresh Assessment Order on 28.02.2024 and in initiating penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c). 3. Without prejudice to Ground No. 1 and 2, the Ld CIT(A) erred in not appreciating that the assessee had not concealed particulars of income and the disallowance was made out of alleged bogus purchases on estimate basis and penalty for concealment of income was not imposable in respect of such estimated disallowance. 4. The Ld CIT(A) erred in not appreciating that the assessee had not concealed the particulars of income and provisions of section 271(1)(c) were not attracted to the facts of the case. 5. The ab....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....under :- "3.1 Assessee company furnished its reply on 02.03.2024 stating that penalty order in this case has already been passed on 16.9.2021 u/s 271(1)(c) of the I.T. Act, 1961 by FPO and levied penalty of Rs. 6,48,924/- after the receipt of the order of Ld. CIT(A). Assessee further stated that it moved to ITAT against the Ld. CIT(A) order and who directed the AO to make afresh assessment in this case. The assessee also requested to the AO to pass appeal effect order giving effect of the ITAT order but it is still pending. Assessee further stated that the penalty proceeding have already been disposed off and there is no justification or passing the Penalty order again in respect of the same issue and same disallowance. 3.2 Reply of the assessee company has duly been considered and found not to tenable because of, on carefully perusal of the Hon'ble ITAT order dated 27.02.2022, it appears that the quantum order of the assessment was quashed for the year under consideration and further directed to the AO to make afresh assessment. Therefore, when the quantum order of the assessment was quashed the penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the IT Act, 1961 was deemed to be settled n....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e and the profit element is confirmed by the Hon'ble ITAT in the case of the assessee which meant that assessee had concealed income to that extent in garb of purchases which turned out to be bogus. Therefore, the penalty levied by the AO u/s 271(1)(c) is justified and confirmed. ..... 10. In the result, the appeal of the appellant is treated as dismissed." 9. It is the above order against which the assessee is in appeal before this Tribunal. 10. We have heard Ld. Counsels from both the sides and perused the material available on record including the paper book and copy of case laws furnished by the assessee. 11. In ground no.1 the assessee has challenged that the Ld. CIT(A) erred in not appreciating that the Ld. Assessing Officer passed penalty order u/s 271(1)(c) on 12.08.2024 mechanically, ignoring the fact that the penalty order on the issue involved was already passed u/s 271(1)(c) on 16.09.2021 after receipt of the order of the Ld CIT(A)-2, Pune, and the impugned order is liable to be quashed. 12. With regard to above ground no.1, we find that this ground was also raised before Ld. CIT(A) and Ld. CIT(A) has disposed the above ground by observ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....& therefore it was inevitable for the AO to issue fresh penalty notices. Thus, this ground no.2 is also dismissed. 16. In ground no.3 & 4, the assessee has challenged the imposition of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the IT Act for concealment of particulars of income. In this regard, it was the contention of Ld. Counsel of the assessee that the addition was made purely on estimate basis and therefore in the light of various judgements/decisions of coordinate bench of this Tribunal and Hon'ble Courts, penalty is not leviable. In support of this contention, Ld. AR relied on the latest judgement passed by Hon'ble Jurisdictional Bombay High Court in the case of PCIT-6 vs. Colo Colour Pvt. Ltd. Income Tax Appeal No.48/2022 order dated 16.09.2025 wherein Hon'ble High Court confirmed the order passed by the Tribunal wherein penalty u/s 271(1)(c) was deleted since the addition was made on estimate basis by observing as under :- "20. We also find that the reliance on behalf of the assessee on the decision of the Gujarat High Court in Vijay Proteins Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax7 is quite apt. In such decision the Division Bench while referring to the decision in Commissioner of ....