TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (5) TMI 683
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ppeals were heard together and are being disposed off by way of common order. 2. We would first take-up appeal for the Assessment Year 2010-2011. ITA No.76/MUM/2026 (Assessment Year 2010-2011) 3. The present appeal preferred by the Assessee is directed against the Order, dated 15/12/2025, passed by the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi [hereinafter referred to as the 'CIT(A)'] whereby Learned CIT(A) had dismissed the appeal against the Penalty Order, dated 31/03/2017, passed under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'], for the Assessment Year 2010-2011. 4. The Assessee has raised following grounds of appeal : "1. The CIT(A) erred in confirming the penalty of Rs.....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....leged bogus purchases. No further appeal was preferred by the appellant against the order of the Learned CIT (A) in quantum proceedings. 6. Thereafter, vide Penalty Order, dated 04/02/2022, the Assessing Officer levied a penalty of INR.21,68,839/- under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. The Learned CIT(A), vide impugned Order, dismissed the appeal of the Assessee and confirmed the penalty levied under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act. Being aggrieved, the Assessee has preferred the present appeal before this Tribunal on the grounds reproduced in paragraph 4 above. 7. We have heard both the sides and have perused the material on record. 8. On perusal of the Assessment Order, dated 01/12/2016, ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....34,977/- is confirmed and grounds associated with this disallowance are dismissed." 10. From the above, it is apparent that the addition has been made in the hands of the Assessee on estimate basis. During the course of hearing Learned Authorized Representative for the Assessee had relied upon the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Income Tax Officer, Ward - 41(2)(2) Vs. In Coach Builders [ITA No.7993/Mum/2025, Assessment Year 2009-2010, dated 18/02/2026] wherein penalty levied under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act in respect of alleged bogus purchases was deleted for the reason that the additions were made on estimate basis estimated by the Tribunal holding as under: "5. Thus, it is evident from the record that the AO made th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....on. Accordingly, the grounds raised by the Revenue are dismissed, and the decision of the learned CIT(A) in deleting the penalty is upheld. 8. In the result, the appeal by the Revenue is dismissed. 11. The above decision is squarely applicable to the facts of the case. Accordingly, respectively following the same we delete the penalty of INR.1,58,955/- levied upon Assessee under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act. Thus, Ground No. 4 raised by the Assessee is allowed while all the other grounds are dismissed as having been rendered infructuous. 12. In result, in terms of paragraph 11 above, the appeal preferred by the Assessee is allowed. ITA No. 75/MUM/2026 [Assessment Year 2011-2012] 13. Now we would take up appeal preferred....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ons regarding hawala cases without demonstrating any specific concealment by the Appellant." 15. We have heard the both the sides and have perused the material on record in relation to the above grounds raised by the Assessee. We find that the Learned CIT(A) has disposed off the appeal preferred by the Assessee without dealing with the submissions filed by the Assessee during the appellate proceedings. Therefore, the Impugned Order dated 28/11/2025 passed by the Learned CIT(A) cannot be sustained and the same is set aside with the directions to Learned CIT(A) to adjudicate the appeal preferred by the Assessee afresh after granting Assessee a reasonable opportunity of being heard and after taking into consideration the submissions filed b....