DCIT 3(1)(1),MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. RELCON INFRAPROJECTS LTD, MUMBAI

“Decision: 6. Ground no.1 is general in nature, hence the same is Dismissed.

7. Ground no.2 is related to levy of penalty u/s.271(1)(c) of the Act. Assessment Year 2014-2015 to 2019-2020 7.1 The AO has passed assessment order u/s.143(3) r.w.s153A of the Act on 30.09.2021 determining total income of Rs.58,16,60,723/- wherein he had made addition of Rs.13,00,68,426/- on account of bogus purchases and addition of Rs.2,06,16,167/- on account of bogus unsecured loan. The assessee had filed an appeal before CIT(A) against the assessment order. The CIT(A) vide his order dated 15.07.2022 has partly allowed the appeal of the assessee and confirmed the addition to the extent of Rs.5,18,153/- in respect of disallowance of bogus purchases made by the AO. Subsequently, the Hon’ble ITAT, Mumbai vide its order dated 26.05.2023 has confirmed the order of the CIT(A). Thereafter, the AO had issued show cause notice u/s.271(1)(c) of the IT Act for concealing the particulars of income. The assessee had filed its submission. However, the AO did not accept the same. The AO in his order has mentioned that during the assessment proceedings, the assessee has failed to provide required corroborative evidence whereby the purchase transactions made by the assessee could be verified and hence the AO has disallowed entire purchases made from the bogus parties. However, the CIT(A) has confirmed the addition to the extent of Rs.5,18,153/- (being 2% of the purchase from Dahisar Service Station, Madhani Infraprojects Pvt. Ltd., Omkar Transport and N.K. Bhoir Transport). The AO further mentioned that since the assessee has concealed the income for the year under consideration, penalty u/s.271(1)(c) is applicable on the assessee. Accordingly, the AO has levied penalty of Rs.1,76,120/- u/s.271(1)(c) of the IT Act. 7.2 During the course of appellate proceedings, the assessee has submitted that the CIT(A) has estimated disallowance to the extent of 2% in respect of the purchases made by it which was subsequently confirmed by the ITAT. Therefore, the assessee mentioned that since the disallowance has been made on estimated basis, it does not justify penalty u/s.271(1)(c) of the Act. The assessee has also relied on the following case laws: “Dev Engineers vs DCIT [ITA No 6002/Mum/2024] dated 20/02/2025 ACIT vs Chetan Pravin Chitalia [ITA No 2100/Mum/2025] dated 16/05/2025 ITO vs Tisya Jewels [ITA 869/Mum/2025] dated 27/06/2025.” 7.3 I found that CIT(A) has estimated disallowance of Rs.5,18,153/- which is 2% of the purchases made by the assessee from various parties and the ITAT has confirmed the order of the CIT(A). Further, I found that ITAT, Mumbai in the Assessment Year 2014-2015 to 2019-2020 case of Dev Engineers vs. DCIT [ITA No.6002/Mum/2024] dated 20.02.2025 has deleted the penalty levied u/s.271(1)(c) of the Act in respect of the addition made on estimated basis. The relevant portion of the Mumbai, ITAT is reproduced as under: “5.2. It is a fact on record as noted both by ld. Assessing Officer and ld. CIT(A), tabulated above that additions sustained are purely on estimate basis. The issue before us is no longer res integra and it is a settled law that in the said factual position, penalty is not imposable on additions sustained on estimate basis. It is an accepted fact that whenever an addition is made on the basis of estimate, penalty u/s 271(1)C is not leviable. There is no scope to levy penalty under the said section. Accordingly, in the given set of facts, the penalty levied u/s.271(1)(c) is deleted. Ground raised by the assessee is allowed.” 7.4 In view of the facts of the case and the decisions of the Hon’ble ITAT referred above, penalty of Rs.1,76,120/- levied by the AO u/s.271(1)(c) of the Act is deleted. Accordingly, this ground of the appeal is Allowed.

8. In the result, the appeal of the assessee for A.Y.2014-15 is Partly Allowed”

11. Being aggrieved, the Revenue has now preferred the present appeal before the Tribunal on the grounds reproduced in Paragraph 3 above.

“13. Accordingly an assessment order under section 153A read with section 143(3) of the act was passed determining the total income of the assessee at ₹ 481,660,720 against the returned income of ₹ 430,976,130 wherein two additions/disallowances were made, (1) disallowance of bogus purchases of ₹ 130,068,426/– and (2) addition under section 68 on account of unexplained cash credit of ₹ 20,616,167/–.

14. In similar manner, following additions or disallowances were made for other assessment years:- serial Assessment year Addition on account Addition on account number of alleged bogus of alleged cash purchases credit under section 68 of the act 1 2015 – 16 20,17,69,283 33,33,334 2 2016 – 17 15,80,15,644 6,10,000 3 2017 – 18 7,30,88,524 6,08,334 4 2018 – 19 8,85,94,455 5,20,833 5 2019 – 20 12,52,40,878 17,80,590 under section 69C of the act being alleged unexplained expenditure 6 2020 – 21 11,58,20,929 Nil 15. Assessee preferred appeal before the learned CIT–A. The learned CIT–A passed a consolidated order for assessment year 2014–15 to 2020–21. Assessment Year 2014-2015 to 2019-2020

a) It was submitted that addition with respect to parties listed at serial number 1 to 11 is for the reason that these parties have not been found at the addresses and were not accompanied with delivery challans. Parties at serial number 12 to 15 were disallowed stating that suppliers have weak financials. b) With respect to one party M/s Nidhi Enterprises, the learned AO made the addition for the reason that the proprietor of the firm does not know anything about the business and she has given her permanent account number to someone at a monthly compensation of ₹ 10,000. c) With respect to parties stated at serial number 17 to 21, the disallowance is made based on statement of Mr. J P Shah. d) xx xx e) xx xx f) With respect to the other parties where the statement of directors was recorded, it was submitted that the transaction stated by the director happened only in year 2018 and not in the current year. Therefore, it has no relevance during other Assessment years other than AY 2019-20. It was submitted that the statement of Mr. Shah was accepted partly for making addition and rejected partly wherein he stated that the relevant transaction Assessment Year 2014-2015 to 2019-2020 pertaining to only one year. Therefore, the addition requires to be deleted. g) The learned CIT – A divided the transaction of disallowance in three parts (1) the parties for which some incriminating evidences were found during search, (2) this 11 is with respect to purchases from Nidhi enterprises, (3) other parties. h) With respect to the parties for which some incriminating evidences found during the course of search, the learned CIT – A found that statement of director was recorded under section 132 (4) of the act and also a document was found and seized from the residence of the director. The amount mentioned in the loose seat was cash received from the vendors to whom assessee paid through cheques. The difference because of over booking of expenses was returned in cash to the cashier at different site. The statement of the director proved that the cash was received back from the vendors for booking of inflated expenses. The names of certain parties were also mentioned in those loose seats. The learned CIT–A also rejected the argument of the assessee that though the period mentioned therein was 11/11/2018 to 21/11/2018 but the fact remains that the purchases were made by the appellant also during assessment year 2014 – 15 from the five parties. Therefore, the purchases made from these parties were not considered as genuine to the extent of inflated expenses and action of the learned assessing officer was upheld. i) With respect to the above parties, the learned CIT – A noted that when there are non genuine purchases, only to the extent of cash received back the purchases could be treated as non genuine. With respect to the balance parties, there has been no Assessment Year 2014-2015 to 2019-2020 evidence about the extent of inflated purchases. It was also not on record that the above parties have not supplied the goods. Therefore, purchases are made but bills are inflated to the extent cash is received back by the cashier. The assessee has made a total purchase of Rs2,59,07,668/– from the above five parties therefore, the disallowance of purchase amounting to 2% of ₹ 2,59,07,668/– in respect of purchases made from them was upheld and balance disallowance was deleted. j. to l xx xx iii & iv. xx xx 17. As already stated, learned CIT – A passed a consolidated order for assessment year 2014–15 to assessment year 2020–21. The effect of the above order is as under: assessment addition made by the AO addition year on account of bogus confirmed by the purchases learned CIT – A 2014 – 15 13,00,68,426 5,18,153 2015 – 16 20,17,69,283 6,81,939 2016 – 17 15,80,15,644 9,40,590 2017 – 18 7,30,88,524 7,76,720 2018 – 19 8,85,94,455 5,91,572 2019 – 20 12,52,40,878 5,89,107 2020 – 21 11,58,20,929 6,95,649

Assessment Addition made by the AO Addition year on account cash confirmed by credit/unexplained the learned expenditure CIT–A 2014 – 15 2,06,16,167 Nil 2015 – 16 33,33,334 Nil (loan of ₹25lakhs and interest of ₹ 1 lakh thereon Assessment Year 2014-2015 to 2019-2020 along with another interest of ₹ 633,334) 2016 – 17 6,10,000 Nil (only interest portion) 2017 – 18 6,08,003 and 34 Nil (interest only) 2018 – 19 520,833 Nil (interest only) 2019 – 20 70,80,590/– ₹ 7,080,590 expenditure under section 69C 2020 – 21 Nil Nil

20-26 xx xx

28-30 xx xx

31. The last leg of the purchase is with respect to the purchases made from five parties by the assessee wherein the learned assessing officer has disallowed the purchases completely. The claim of the assessee is that the disallowance was made on the basis of the statement of Mr. JP Shah who did not state that the payments made towards purchases were received back by the assessee. It is lose sheets, which suggests so for FY 2018- 19. However, the learned assessing officer has ignored the statement that the transaction of receiving the cash happened Assessment Year 2014-2015 to 2019-2020 once only and that too in assessment year 2018–19. For this proposition assessee relied upon the decision of the honourable Gujarat High Court in 252 ITR 417, 270 TTJ 70 65 TTJ 327 and 56 TTJ 460. The learned CIT – A with respect to these parties where statement of the director of the assessee recorded under section 132(4) during the search proceedings in which he has stated that loose sheet seized from his resident by assessee from vendors of the assessee, remain unchallenged. The amount mentioned in the loose sheet was cash received from the vendor to whom assessee has paid through cheques. The difference on account of over booking of expenses was returned in cash to the cashier at different sites. The cashier in turn handed over the cash to the director. Therefore, the statement of Shri J P Shah proves that the cash was received back from the vendor for booking of inflated expenses. The assessee has reflected the relevant transactions for the period 11/11/18 to 21/11/2018. The learned lower authorities have stated that though these transactions does not pertain the assessment year 2014-15 to 2017–18, but held that these activities of inflation of the expenses must be continuing in other period also i.e. in the current assessment year. The statement of the director was with respect to the amount of cash received, which are the inflated expenses. Therefore, the fact shows that the amount of inflation in the expenses is not the total expenses but some percentage of such expenses. As there is no information available and no evidence is available about the extent of inflated purchases, the learned CIT–A confirmed 2% of the total purchases from the above-mentioned parties as non genuine. The claim of the assessee before us is that in absence of any evidence for this assessment year, no disallowance can be made. The learned authorized representative could not show us any reason that why the same system should not be presumed to have been carried on in this year also which were found in assessment year 2019-20. The claim of the assessee is that it cannot prove negative. The learned departmental representative also stated that there is a presumption available against the assessee that assessee is booking inflated expenses with respect to these parties. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in the interest of justice, we do not find any infirmity in the order of the learned CIT–A in upholding the disallowance of 2% of such purchases, because it is beyond the human probabilities Assessment Year 2014-2015 to 2019-2020 that the assessee has carried out inflation of expenditure with respect to this parties only for the period of assessment year 2019 – 20. Accordingly, the order of the learned CIT – A is upheld. Ground number 1 and 2 of the appeal of the AO and ground number 3 of the appeal of the assessee is dismissed. 32. xx xx 33. Accordingly, appeals of the assessee as well as the learned assessing officer for AY 2014-15 are dismissed.

of the parties are also similar, the arguments of the parties are also the same, and therefore, we do not incline to change our reasons also. In view of our finding for assessment year 2014–15, we uphold the order of the learned CIT–A in deleting the disallowance of purchase expenses to the extent deleted by him, deleting the disallowance of interest expenditure paid on loans added under section 68 of the income tax act. In the result, for all these years appeals filed by the AO as well as the assessee are dismissed.

35. In the result all 14 appeals filed in case of Relcon Infra projects Limited by the assessee and the learned assessing officer for assessment year 2014–15 to 2020–21 are dismissed.” (Emphasis Supplied)

15. On perusal of above extract of the decision of the Tribunal in quantum proceedings for the Assessment Year 2014-2015, we find that the Co-ordinate Bench of the Tribunal had held that:

(a) The lower authorities had concluded that even though the statement of Shri Jainendera P Shah pertained to transactions for the financial year 2018-2019 relevant to the Assessment Year 2019-2020, the activities of inflation of the expenses must have continued in other periods (including the previous year relevant to the Assessment Year 2014-2015). It was beyond the human probabilities that the Assessee had inflated purchase expense related to alleged bogus purchases made Assessment Year 2014-2015 to 2019-2020 from same parties/vendors only for the Assessment Year 2019–2020. Therefore, the contention of the Assessee that the purchases were not inflated in Assessment Year other than Assessment Year 2019-2020 cannot be accepted.

(b) No information or evidence was available about the extent of inflated purchases and therefore, the order of the Learned CIT(A) had confirmed the addition to the extent of 2% of the alleged bogus purchases. The claim of the Assessee that in absence of any evidence, no disallowance can be made was not acceptable as the Assessee could not show any reason as to why the system found to be in operation for the Assessment Year 2019–2020 should not be presumed to have been carried on during the Assessment Year 2014-2015.

16. On perusal finding returned by the Co-ordinate Bench of the Tribunal in the quantum proceedings, it becomes clear that the addition in respect of alleged bogus purchases were sustained to the extent of 2% of alleged bogus purchases on estimate basis in absence of any material to determine the extent of inflation of purchase expenses. The Tribunal had observed that though there was no information or evidence available regarding the extent of inflation of purchases the order passed by the Learned CIT(A) restricting the disallowance to 2% of the alleged bogus purchases did not warrant any interference as it was beyond human probabilities to conclude that Assessee would have inflated expenditure only for the Assessment Year 2019- 2020. It was presumed that the same system would have operated during the previous year relevant to the Assessment Year 2014- 2015 also. Given the aforesaid, we do not find any infirmity in the order passed by the Learned CIT(A) in deleting the penalty levied under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act by placing reliance upon the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Dev Engineers Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax [ITA No 6002/Mum/2024, dated Assessment Year 2014-2015 to 2019-2020 20/02/2025], Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Chetan Pravin Chitalia [ITA No 2100/Mum/2025, dated 16/05/2025] and Income Tax Officer Vs. Tisya Jewels [ITA 869/Mum/2025, dated 27/06/2025] cited on behalf of the Assessee during the course of hearing before the Learned CIT(A).

“7. We have heard both the parties and perused the materials available on record. We have also deliberated upon the decisions relied upon by the parties. Though the revenue has raised 10 grounds of appeal

, they are either inter-connected or are general in nature. Hence, the grounds are decided together in terms of the discussion made hereafter. The re- assessment order was passed u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Act by disallowing 100% of the purchases of Rs.1,01,43,657/- from M/s Reliance Steel Traders and M/s CR Enterprises. The disallowance was restricted to 12.5% of the impugned purchase by CIT(A) and ITAT. Thus, it is clear that the additions all through have been made on estimation basis. The penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act has been levied on the estimated addition by the AO, which has been deleted by the CIT(A). The ld. AR has argued that different ITATs, Hon’ble Supreme Court and High Courts have held that penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act could not be levied where addition was on estimated basis. The Co-ordinate Bench of ITAT, Mumbai in cases of Elcon Pipe and Fittings (supra) and Mun Gems vs. ACIT, 155 taxmann.com

1. (Bom.) and ITAT, Surat in cases of Yogendra Raj U Sanghvi, dated 19.10.2023 and DCIT vs. M/s Opulent Jewels Pvt. Ltd., ITA Assessment Year 2014-2015 to 2019-2020 No. 1855/AHD/2010/SRT, dated 15.11.2018, have also held that no penalty is leviable on estimated addition. The ITAT, Mumbai in case of Mun Gems (supra) has held that where AO treated entire purchase as bogus based on findings of investigation wing and levied penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act, since payment for purchases had been made through account payee cheques and there were corresponding sales, ad hoc GP rate applied on alleged bogus purchases to factor in suppression of alleged gross profit could not be basis of levying penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act for furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income or concealing particulars of income. Since the facts are similar, following the above decisions, the order of CIT(A) in deleting the penalty levied u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act is upheld. Accordingly, the grounds of the revenue are dismissed.

8. In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed” 18. In view of the above, we hold that the order passed by the Learned CIT(A) deleting penalty of INR. INR.1,76,210/- levied under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act for the Assessment Year 2014-2015 does not suffer from any infirmity and therefore, we decline to interfere with the same. All the grounds raised by the Revenue are dismissed.

20. In result appeal preferred by the Revenue is dismissed.

[Assessment Year 2015-2016 & 2016-2017] 21. Next we would take up appeal preferred by the Revenue for the Assessment Year 2015-2016 and 2016-2017.

1. The Ld. CIT(A) erred in deleting the penalty of Rs.3,25,519/- u/s.271(1)(c) of the Act being 100% of alleged tax sought to be evaded on estimation disallowance made of Rs.9,40,590/- 2% on bogus purchases made by the assessee in the assessment order by holding that the assessee has concealed the particulars of income.

[Assessment Year 2017-2018] 27. Now we would take up appeal preferred by the Revenue against the order, dated 18/08/2025, passed by the Learned CIT(A) whereby the Learned CIT(A) had partly allowed the appeal against the Penalty Order, dated 29/03/2024, passed under Section 270A of the Act for the Assessment Year 2017-2018.

1. The Ld. CIT(A) erred in deleting the penalty of Rs.5,37,613/- u/s.270A of the Act being 200% of alleged tax sought to be evade on estimated disallowance made of Rs.7,76,720/- 2% on bogus purchases made by the assessee in the assessment order by holding that the assessee had under reported income in consequence of misreporting of income.

29. We note that in facts and circumstances identical to those prevailing in the previous year relevant to the Assessment Year 2014-2015, Penalty of INR.5,37,612/- was levied upon the Assessee under Section 270A of the Act for the Assessment Year 2017-2018. The aforesaid penalty was deleted by the Learned CIT(A) vide Order Assessment Year 2014-2015 to 2019-2020 dated 18/08/2025. Being aggrieved, the Revenue has now preferred the present appeal on the grounds reproduced at Paragraph 28 above.

“Q.22 I am showing you loose sheet as page number 4 of the Seized Material. Please confirm it is found from your residence and please comment on the same. Assessment Year 2014-2015 to 2019-2020 Ans. Sir, I confirm that the said loose sheet is found from my residence. The names mentioned in the right half of the paper are the vendors of M/s.Relcon Infraprojects Ltd. at Padga, Kharghar and Nagla Sites. These amounts are received in cash from the vendors to whom M/s. RelconInfraprojects Ltd. paid through cheque. The difference on account of overbooking of expenses is returned in cash to the cashier at different sites, who in turn hands over the cash to me. During the period of 11.11.2018 to 21.11.2018 total cash of Rs.70,80,590/- was handed over by the cashier at different sites to me. I have handed over the said cash of Rs.70,80,590/- to the cashier of Ms/ Relcon Infraprojects Ltd. Which constitutes over expenditure booked by M/s.Relcon Infraprojects Ltd. in its books accounts.

Q.23 Please state how many times you have received cash in such from during the last six years.

Ans. Sir, as far I know we have done it only once.”

34. In the above statement, Mr. Jainendera P Shah had admitted that the Assessee had inflated purchased expenses and received back part of inflated purchase consideration in cash for specified transaction. Though the transactions disclosed by Mr. Jainendera P Shah were undertaken between 11/11/2018 to 21/11/2018, falling within the previous year 2018-2019 relevant to Assessment Year 2019-2020, it was presumed by the Learned CIT(A) that the same state of affairs had existed in other years (including previous year relevant to the Assessment Year 2017-2018). The aforesaid Order passed by the Learned CIT(A) stands confirmed by the Tribunal vide Common Order, dated 26/05/2023.

[Assessment Year 2018-2019] [Assessment Year 2019-2020] & [Assessment Year 2020-2021]

1. The Ld. CIT(A) erred in deleting the penalty of Rs.5,37,613/- u/s.270A of the Act being 200% of alleged Assessment Year 2014-2015 to 2019-2020 tax sought to be evade on estimated disallowance made of Rs.7,76,720/- 2% on bogus purchases made by the assessee in the assessment order by holding that the assessee had under reported income in consequence of misreporting of income.

Identical grounds have been raised by the Revenue for the Assessment Year 2019-2020 and 2020-2021.

Additional contention for the Assessment Year 2019-2020 42. Before parting we would like to deal with additional contention raised by the Assessee in appeal for the Assessment Year 2019-2020. It was contended on behalf of the Assessee that penalty levied under Assessment Year 2014-2015 to 2019-2020 Section 270A of the Act in respect of alleged bogus purchases for the Assessment Year 2019-2020 cannot be sustained since penalty under Section 271AAC of the Act has already been levied in respect of addition made by the Assessing Officer under Section 69C of the Act in respect of the same purchases. In order to deal with the aforesaid contention raised by the Assessee it would be pertinent to refer to the relevant factual background.

42.1. For the Assessment Year 2019-2020, vide Assessment Order, dated 30/09/2021, passed under Section 143(3) read with Section 153A of the Act the Assessing Officer assessed the income of the Assessee at INR30,65,14,720/- after making the following additions and/or disallowances: Sr. No. Particulars Amount (in INR) 1. Alleged bogus purchases 12,52,40,878 2. Disallowance of unexplained expenditure under 70,80,590 Section 69C of the Act Total additions/disallowance 13,23,21,468 42.2. The Assessee challenged the additions/disallowances made by the Assessing Officer in appeal before the Learned CIT(A). Vide Order, dated 15/07/2022, the Learned CIT(A) disposed off the said appeal confirming the addition of INR.70,80,590/- made by the Assessing Officer under Section 69C of the Act in respect of cash received back by the Assessee from suppliers/vendors. As regards the addition of INR.12,52,40,878/- made by the Assessing Officer in respect of alleged bogus purchases is concerned, the Learned CIT(A) deleted the addition made by the Assessing Officer in respect of alleged bogus purchases of INR.9,57,85,536/-. As regards the balance addition of INR.2,94,55,536/- made by the Assessing Officer in respect of alleged bogus purchases made from suppliers/vendors (in relation to which incriminating documents relating to overbooking of expenses as well as receipt/return of cash was found during search), the Learned CIT(A) restricted the disallowance to INR.5,89,107/- [@2% Assessment Year 2014-2015 to 2019-2020 of INR.2,94,55,536/-] and deleted the remaining addition of INR.2,53,89,514/-.

42.3. Being aggrieved, both, the Assessee as well as Revenue, filed appeal before the before the Tribunal [ITA 2275/Mum/2022 and 2626/Mum/2022]. Vide Common Order, dated 26/05/2023, (disposing off Cross-Appeals pertaining to Assessment Years 2014- 2015 to 2020-2021), the Tribunal dismissed the aforesaid cross- appeals for the Assessment Year 2019-2020. Thus, For the Assessment Year 2019-2020, addition of INR.70,80,590/- made by the Assessing Officer under Section 69C of the Act and addition made by the Assessing Officer on account of alleged bogus purchases for the Assessment Year 2019-2020 only to the extent of INR.5,89,107/- got sustained.

42.4. The appeal under consideration preferred by the Revenue pertains to penalty levied under Section 270A of the Act vide Penalty Order, dated 29/03/2024 in relation to the above addition of INR.5,89,107/- which was deleted by the Learned CIT(A). A separate penalty order, dated 29/03/2024, was passed by the Assessing Officer levying penalty of INR.5,52,285/- under Section 271AAC of the Act in respect of addition of INR.70,80,590/- made under Section 69C of the Act which was brought to tax at the rate of 60% under Section 115BBE of the Act.

42.5. The addition under Section 69C of the Act was made in respect of cash received back by the Assessee in respect of purchases made from identified parties. The transactions relevant for the aforesaid addition were those undertaken by the Assessee between 11/11/2018 and 21/11/2018. Whereas, the disallowance of INR.5,52,285/- was made in respect of purchase made from the same parties during the relevant previous year and the charge against the Assessee was inflation of purchases. Since there was no Assessment Year 2014-2015 to 2019-2020 material to determine the quantum of inflation, the disallowance was made on estimate basis at the rate of 2% of aggregate alleged bogus purchases of INR.2,94,55,536/- made from the said parties. Therefore, it cannot be said that addition of INR.5,52,285/- resulted in double taxation of same income in absence of one to one correlation between the inflated purchases made from the specified parties/vendors and cash received back from such specified parties/vendors in respect of inflated purchases. Further, if the contention of the Assessee is accepted then taking into consideration the addition of INR.70,80,590/- made under Section 69C of the Act in respect of cash received specified parties/vendors and the aggregate purchases of INR.2,94,55,536/- made from the said parties, the extent of inflation of purchases would come to a figure much higher than the inflation of 2% of alleged purchases estimated by the appellate authorities. Therefore, we reject the contention of the Assessee that penalty levied under Section 270A of the Act in respect of alleged bogus purchases for the Assessment Year 2019- 2020 cannot be sustained since penalty under Section 271AAC of the Act has already been levied in respect of addition made by the Assessing Officer under Section 69C of the Act in respect of the same purchases. It is clarified that we have already confirmed the order passed by the Learned CIT(A) deleting penalty levied for the Assessment Year 2019-2020 under Section 270A of the Act, albeit, for different reasons. In our view, penalty levied by the Assessing Officer under Section 270A of the Act for the Assessment Year 2019- 2020 was also not sustainable on account of the fact that in Paragraph 6.11 of the Assessment Order, dated 39/03/2024, passed for the Assessment Year 2019-2020 under Section 153A read with Section 143(3) of the Act the Assessing Officer had recorded that penalty proceedings were being initiated under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act for ‘concealing the particulars of income and for furnishing inaccurate particulars of the taxable income’ and not under Section Assessment Year 2014-2015 to 2019-2020 270A of the Act for under-reporting/misreporting of income.