11&13.ITXA.333.2022.DOC IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION INCOME TAX APPEAL NO.333 OF 2022 The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-27 Appellant versus Shashank Harshadrai Shah Respondent AND INCOME TAX APPEAL NO.1747 OF 2022 The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-27 Appellant versus Shashank Harshadrai Shah Respondent _______ Mr.Arjun Gupta for Appellant. Ms.Ruchi Rathod i/by Manohar Samal for Respondent. _______ CORAM: G. S. KULKARNI & AARTI SATHE, JJ. DATE: 7th November 2025 P.C. 1. These two appeals are filed by the Revenue to challenge the orders passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal. The order is a common order for the assessment years 2009-10 and 2010-11. By the impugned order the Tribunal has rejected the appeals filed by Revenue assailing the orders passed by the Commissioner of Appeals, whereby the orders of penalty imposed under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 against the Petitioner, were set aside by the Commissioner of Appeals, is upheld. 2. We have perused the record. It appears that it was not in dispute that in the reassessment the Assessing Officer deleted the additions and out of the alleged Manish Thatte MANISH SURESHRAO THATTE Digitally signed by MANISH SURESHRAO THATTE Date: 2025.11.11 13:53:14 +0530 11&13.ITXA.333.2022.DOC bogus purchases of Rs.15,91,446/-, Rs.1,98,931/-, income at 12.5% of the said purchases was added to the total income of the assessee. After such additions were made and accepted by the assessee, penalty proceedings were initiated against the assessee. 3. The learned counsel for the parties are ad-idem that the proceedings of the present appeals would stand covered by the decision of this Court in the case of The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-6 Vs. Colo Colour Pvt.Ltd1 in which in identical circumstances, the Court has upheld the orders passed by the Tribunal. In the said orders passed by this Court, it also considered the previous view taken by the Court in the case of Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-1 Vs. SVD Resins & Plastics Pvt.Ltd2 as also the view taken by the Gujarat High Court in Vijay Proteins Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax3, and in case of Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Krishi Tyre Retreading and Rubber Industries4. Thus, there is no dispute that the present proceedings which are identically placed, would stand covered by these decisions. 4. Accordingly, both the appeals do not raise any substantial question of law. The appeals are accordingly dismissed. No costs. (AARTI SATHE, J.) (G. S. KULKARNI, J.) 1Income Tax Appeal No.48/2022, dated 16-09-2025 2(2025)-474-ITR-151 3(2015)59-taxmann.com-44 (Gujarat) 4(2014)44-taxmann.com-9 (Rajasthan) Manish Thatte