Bhavnesh Saini, J.M.: This appeal by assessee is directed against order of CIT(A), Jammu, headquarters at Amritsar, dt. 30th March, 2001 for asst. yr. 1997-98 whereby CIT(A) dismissed appeal of assessee and confirmed penalty under s. 271(1)(c) of IT Act. We have heard learned representatives of both parties and gone through observations of authorities below. facts of this case are that return declaring income at Rs. 91,870 has been filed on 27th Oct., 1997. case was selected for scrutiny and assessee was represented by counsel Shri V.B. Aggarwal, chartered accountant. assessee-firm derives income from running flour mill. Books o f account were produced, during course of examination of case but it has been found that assessee has raised bills of purchase from M/s Surya Enterprises, G.T. Road, Damtal and M/s Ambika Trading Co., Hoshiarpur, but no genuine purchases from these two parties have been made. AO noticed certain facts regarding these bills being fictitious are discussed party-wise as under: (1) M/s Surya Enterprises, Damtal summons under s. 131 issued to this party returned unserved with postal remarks that no such firm exists. Thereafter summons were again issued at asking of Shri V.B. Aggarwal, counsel for assessee Dasti for service upon party. summons were issued on 3rd March, 2000 but on date, i.e., 8th March, 2000 no one attended proceedings. It was not clarified as to why nobody attended proceedings despite issue of summons. On bills, number of trucks has been mentioned which allegedly transported wheat from Damtal to Hoshiarpur. owners of trucks were contacted and they have given in writing that they had never transported wheat for M/s Surya Enterprises from Damtal to Hoshiarpur during period relevant to assessment year under appeal. AO found that there is mention of assessee s own three trucks on said bills but in drivers account of these trucks, there is no mention that any of trucks had transported wheat from Damtal to Hoshiarpur. AO noticed that no details are furnished as regards crossing of trucks from barriers for transporting wheat. AO also noticed that M/s Surya Enterprises appears to be agent o f assessee as person who deposited cash in assessee s account and who also signed on withdrawal cheques on 26th May, 1996 and 19th Aug., 1997 of M/s Surya Enterprises is same. manager, Canara Bank, Pathankot vide his letter dt. 11th March, 2000 has confirmed that signatures are of same person. (2) M/s Ambika Trading Co., Hoshiarpur Shri Romesh Kumar Dhir, proprietor of this concern has made confession in his statements dt. 7th Jan., 2000 and 14th March, 2000 that he has made no genuine sale and all bills issued by him are fictitious. It has been further stated by him that employees of assessee-firm namely, Shri Dharam Pal and Shri Kamal Kishore used to take self cheque from him and they would take away amount day any cheque was credited into his account with Punjab and Sind Bank, Hoshiarpur, on account of payment against fictitious sale shown by him. AO also found that there are no mention of truck number on sale voucher and on gate pass no date is mentioned. In this case, one of owners of truck has also denied in his statement to have transported any wheat for assessee. A. assessee in reply to above said material filed reply dt. 22nd March, 2000 in which it was briefly stated that it is unjustified to observe that assessee made fictitious purchases from above parties. It was also explained that both parties were assessed to income-tax and that assessee-firm made payments to both parties by account-payee cheques which have been accounted for in their books. In case there is any cash withdrawals by assessee s employees, it does not establish any nexus between assessee and both parties and such withdrawals may be for two or three instances. It was also explained that summon under s. 131 was served upon party and in case they have not attended office, they may again be summoned for verification of purchases. assessee also filed confirmed copies of accounts of these parties. It was explained that purchases are genuine and statement of Shri Romesh Kumar is fictitious and contradictory with copy of account duly confirmed. It was submitted that without prejudice to above submissions, it is submitted that there is no involvement of any partner of firm and there may be employees of assessee-firm who were in absence of partners making/indulging in committing fraud with firm for which partners are making independent enquiries. AO considering reply of assessee was of view that extensive enquiries were made in this case which proved that purchases are bogus and fictitious. AO also observed that reply of assessee clearly proves that assessee admitted indirectly default but attributed it to employees. statement of Shri Kamal Kishore, clerk of assessee-firm was recorded under s. 131 of IT Act and he in his statement admitted that partners of assessee-firm were busy in launching their new venture at Ludhiana and in their absence, he used to make purchases as well as sales. He has further stated that sometimes some parties sold goods but they did not issue any voucher and vouchers delivered were of some other parties. AO on this basis observed that assessee-firm had made purchases from outside books of account and procured fictitious bills from these two parties. AO on facts and circumstances of case estimated that assessee had initial purchases made outside books of account to extent of Rs. 10 lakhs and subsequently purchases were made by rotating this amount. AO also held that assessee has suppressed sales. AO accordingly, held that assessee earned profit of Rs. 3,50,000 which escaped assessment on account of suppression of sales made by assessee. Certain expenses were also disallowed and ultimately assessment in sum of Rs. 15,93,570 was made against assessee. It is admitted fact that findings of AO were not challenged before CIT(A) and, therefore, assessment order stands confirmed. AO on basis of findings given in assessment order initiated penalty proceedings under s. 271(1)(c) of IT Act. Show-cause notice under s. 271(1)(c) was issued as assessee has furnished inaccurate particulars of income in respect of above additions. assessee in response to show-cause notice filed reply through Shri V.B. Aggarwal, chartered accountant on 30th March, 2000, which is reproduced as under: "Reference your honour s show-cause notice under s. 271(1)(c) of Act, "Reference your honour s show-cause notice under s. 271(1)(c) of Act, it is submitted that there is concealment of any income on part of assessee and as submitted in my replies that all sales as well as purchases made by assessee are genuine and duly recorded in books of account and stock registers, my reply dt. 3rd March, 2000 be referred. That if there is any discrepancy in purchases or sales this is absolutely not known to partners of firm and it may have been done by employees which is also evident from statements recorded by your honour in course of assessment proceedings. statement of Shri Kamal Kishore and Shri Monohar Lal, employees of firm may kindly be referred. Further, assessee s reply dt. 22nd March, 2000 may also be taken into consideration in this regard. That since assessee has agreed for levy of penalty under s. 271(1)(c), assessee may be levied this penalty on basis of discussions with your honour which is due to negligence of employees of assessee only. penalty levied be minimum on tax payable by assessee-firm and after taking into consideration replies filed in course of assessment proceedings. assessee has agreed for levy of penalty to buy peace of mind." (Emphasis, italicised in print, supplied) AO considering reply of assessee had imposed penalty under s. 271(1)(c) of IT Act vide order dt. 31st March, 2000. penalty order was challenged before CIT(A) and appeal was instituted on 8th Jan., 2001. Shri V.B. Aggarwal, chartered accountant submitted before CIT(A) that addition has been made without appreciating facts of case. He has submitted that all purchases and sales are verifiable. No addition is possible on basis of consumption of electricity, since assessee maintained regular books of account and stock register, purchases and sales are verifiable. Once verification of manufacturing account is possible, no addition could be made on basis of irrelevant facts. learned counsel for assessee relied upon order of CIT(A), Amritsar and decision of Hon ble Supreme Court in case of Hindustan Steel Ltd. vs. State of Orissa (1972) 83 ITR 26 (SC). CIT(A) considering submissions of assessee dismissed appeal of assessee as assessee did not have any grievance before him because assessee agreed to levy of penalty. findings of CIT(A) in para 2.3 are reproduced as under: "2.3 On careful consideration of facts of case, I find no merit in submissions made on behalf of appellant. All case law referred to by learned counsel is on levy of penalty in cases where assessee agrees to certain addition. He has tried to make out case that penalty cannot b e levied unless fact of concealment is established. facts of case under consideration are clearly distinguishable. In this case, Authorised Representatives including partner of firm agreed to additions as well as levy of penalty. Once assessee agrees to levy of penalty, he cannot have any grievance against such levy. Reliance for this proposition is placed on judgment of Punjab & Haryana High Court in case of Banta Singh Kartar Singh vs. CIT (1980) 125 ITR 239 (P&H). In that case also, partners as well as chartered accountant agreed to levy of penalty. It was held by Hon ble Judges of High Court that order based on agreement cannot give rise to grievances and same cannot be agitated in appeal. However, if appellant is of view that agreement was made under mistaken belief of fact or law, he should make application for rectification to authority which passed order. Until rectification is made, appeal is not competent [Rameshchandra & Co. vs. CIT (1987) 168 ITR 375 (Bom)]. In view of facts of case, penalty levied by AO is confirmed." assessee is in appeal before us. learned counsel for assessee argued that authorities below have wrongly imposed penalty against assessee. He has referred to various replies filed before AO at assessment stage and at penalty stage before AO and CIT(A). He has argued that sales and purchases have been properly recorded in books of account which have been maintained in ordinary course of business and that assessee though received notice for purpose of service upon M/s Surya Enterprises has served notice upon said party. He has further submitted that if said party did not appear then AO should have taken further recourse for summoning of party for confirmation of purchases. As regards M/s Ambika Trading Co., he has submitted that Shri Romesh Kumar Dhir, proprietor, has made contradictory statement that copy of account duly confirmed by him. He has also referred to reply of assessee filed on dt. 22nd March, 2000 referred to above in this order. He has also referred to reply dt. 30th March, 2000 filed before AO at penalty stage and submitted that in this reply dt. 30th March, 2000 in para 3, assessee agreed for levy of minimum penalty on basis of discussion with AO. main point of discussion with AO was that no penalty shall be levied on addition made in trading account as all evidence required was filed by assessee and moreover trading addition was mainly made on agreed basis. In respect of disallowance out of expenses claimed assessee had agreed for levy of penalty to buy peace of mind. He has submitted that certain expenses were disallowed upon which assessee agreed for imposition of penalty in said reply. He has submitted that this point was clarified before CIT(A) in reply, copy of which is filed at p. 33 of paper book. He has also referred to affidavit of Shri Anil Kumar, partner dt. 27th Feb., 2001, copy of which is filed at p. 35 of paper book and submitted that no proper opportunity was given by AO at time of imposition of penalty and that at assessment stage, assessee under duress signed certain papers before AO at quantum stage. learned counsel for assessee also referred to affidavit of Shri Anil Kumar, dt. 5th March, 2005, copy of which is filed at p. 39 of paper book i n which it was stated that additions/disallowances were admitted by him before AO during course of assessment proceedings to buy peace of mind and these were related to mistakes/negligence of his employees. He has also stated in affidavit that no admission was made before AO either by him or by his Authorised Representative for levy of penalty under s. 271(1)(c) of IT Act on disallowance made by AO under s. 143(3) of IT Act. learned counsel for assessee submitted on above basis that assessee or his counsel never agreed for imposition of penalty. However, he has admitted that assessment order was not challenged before CIT(A) on quantum. learned counsel for assessee submitted that for imposition of penalty, AO has to prove that assessee has concealed particulars of his income or furnished inaccurate particulars of income. learned counsel for assessee further submitted that on mere admission to imposition of penalty, (it) is not enough to sustain penalty order. He has further submitted that on admission penalty cannot be imposed. He has relied upon decision of Hon ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in matter of Chhat Mull Aggarwal vs. CIT (1979) 8 CTR (P&H) 368: (1979) 116 ITR 694 (P&H), decision of Hon ble Kerala High Court in matter of CIT vs. India Sea Foods (1997) 137 CTR (Ker)(FB) 553: (1996) 218 ITR 629 (Ker)(FB), decision of Hon ble Bombay High Court in matter of Padgilwar Bros. vs. CIT (1971) 81 ITR 258 (Bom), decision of Hon ble Mysore High Court in matter of D. Halappa Sons vs. CIT (1974) 95 ITR 542 (Mysore), order of Tribunal, Amritsar Bench in case of Ramesh Chander Kundra vs. ITO 5 TLR 342 (Asr) and decision of Tribunal, Ahmedabad Bench in case of Patel Oil Mills vs. ITO (1990) 38 TTJ (Ahd) 277: (1990) 35 ITD 451 (Ahd). learned counsel for assessee argued that CIT(A) should have decided appeals of assessee on merits and further submitted that decision of Hon ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in matter of Banta Singh Kartar Singh vs. CIT (1980) 125 ITR 239 (P&H) as relied upon by CIT(A) is not applicable in view of above decisions and particularly when Hon ble High Court has not considered its earlier decision in case of Chhat Mull Aggarwal (supra). However, learned counsel for assessee has fairly submitted that earlier decision of Hon ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in case of Chhat Mull Aggarwal (supra) was not approved and dissented from by Hon ble Bombay High Court in matter of Rameshchandra & Co. vs. CIT (1987) 168 ITR 375 (Bom). learned counsel for assessee on relying upon decision of Hon ble Supreme Court in case of A.R. Antulay vs. R.S. Nayak (1988) 2 SCC 602, decision of Hon ble Supreme Court in matter of B. Satyanarayana Rao vs. Government of Andhra Pradesh AIR 2000 SC 1729 and decision of Hon ble Supreme Court in matter of Jaisri Sahu vs. Rajdewan Dubey AIR 1962 SC 83 submitted that circumstances that decision is reached per incuriam, merely serves to denude decision of its precedent value. It would not be binding as judicial precedent. co-ordinate precedent value. It would not be binding as judicial precedent. co-ordinate Bench can disagree with it and decline to follow it. larger Bench can overrule such decision. When previous decision is so overruled it does not happen nor has overruling Bench any jurisdiction so to do that finality of operative order, inter partes, in previous decision is overturned. In this context, word decision means only reason for previous order and not operative order in previous decision, binding inter partes. He has further submitted that rule of per incuriam can be applied where Court omits to consider binding precedent of same Court or superior Court rendered on same issue or where Court omits to consider any statute while deciding that issue. He has further submitted that in such circumstances all other decisions have to be ignored on principle of per incuriam as earlier decision of Hon ble Punjab & Haryana High Court was not considered in later decision. learned counsel for assessee accordingly submitted that order of CIT(A) is liable to (be) set aside and matter may be restored to CIT(A) to decide appeal of assessee on merits. learned counsel for assessee lastly argued that AO has not recorded his satisfaction as regards concealment of income and furnishing inaccurate particulars of income by assessee in assessment order. Therefore, order imposing penalty is liable to be set aside. He has relied upon decision of Hon ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in matter of CIT vs. Munish Iron Store (2004) 186 CTR (P&H) 159: (2003) 263 ITR 484 (P&H) and decision of Hon ble Delhi High Court in matter of CIT vs. Ram Commercial Enterprises Ltd. (2001) 167 CTR (Del) 321: (2000) 246 ITR 568 (Del). learned counsel for assessee lastly argued that decision of Bombay High Court in matter of Jivatlal Purtapshi vs. CIT (1967) 65 ITR 261 (Bom) is not applicable in view of above circumstances. On other hand, learned Departmental Representative submitted that assessee agreed to addition on quantum as well as penalty. learned Departmental Representative further submitted that assessment order was available with assessee prior to issue of penalty notice. Therefore, if assessee was satisfied that it has not made any admission with regard to quantum addition then appeal on merits could have been filed but assessee did not file any appeal before CIT(A) on quantum, which shows that assessee was guilty of concealment of income and filing inaccurate particulars of income. learned Departmental Representative further submitted that AO issued show-cause notice to assessee before imposing penalty but no appeal on merits was filed and counsel for assessee agreed to imposition of penalty. Therefore, assessee is not aggrieved by order of AO and as such appeal before CIT(A) was not maintainable. learned Departmental Representative further pointed out that though penalty order was passed on 31st March, 2000 but appeal before CIT(A) was instituted on 8th Jan., 2001, which shows that assessee agreed to penalty but later on realising consequences filed appeal before CIT(A) which was not maintainable. learned Departmental Representative further submitted that AO made enquiries at assessment stage and materials and evidences were found against assessee as regards bogus purchases then assessee agreed to addition on quantum. learned Departmental Representative submitted that AO has mentioned in assessment order his satisfaction to initiate penalty proceedings and as such decisions of Hon ble Punjab & Haryana High Court and Delhi High Court as relied upon by learned counsel for assessee are not applicable. learned Departmental Representative submitted that since assessee did not explain issue on merits, therefore, AO rightly imposed penalty on merits as well as on admission of assessee s counsel. As result, there is no infirmity in orders of authorities below. CIT(A) rightly rejected appeal of assessee as assessee had no grievance against order of penalty. We have considered rival submissions and material available on record. Sec. 271(1)(c) provides that if AO or CIT(A) in course of any proceedings under this Act is satisfied that any person has concealed particulars of his income or furnished inaccurate particulars of such income, he may direct that such person shall pay by way of penalty. Explanation 1 to s. 271(1)(c) of Act provides that: "Explanation 1. Where in respect of any facts material to computation of total income of any person under this Act of total income of any person under this Act (A) such person fails to offer explanation or offers explanation which is found by AO or CIT(A) or CIT to be false, or (B) such person offers explanation which he is not able to substantiate and fails to prove that such explanation is bona fide and that all facts relating to same and material to computation of his total income have been disclosed by him, then, amount added or disallowed in computing total income of such person as result thereof shall, for purposes of cl. (c) of this sub- section, be deemed to represent income in respect of which particulars have been concealed." On plain reading of aforesaid provisions would clearly show that A O can impose penalty against assessee if he was satisfied that assessee has concealed particulars of his income or furnished inaccurate particulars of such income. Explanation 1 to above s. 271(1)(c) put burden upon assessee to explain facts and material and provides that if assessee fails to offer explanation or offers explanation which is found by AO to be false then amount added or disallowed in computing total income in respect of such person as result thereof shall, for purposes of cl. (c) of this sub-section be deemed to represent income in respect of which particulars have been concealed. facts of above case clearly show that AO at assessment stage made enquiries with regard to purchase made by assessee from two of parties namely, M/s Surya Enterprises and M/s Ambika Trading Co. In case of M/s Surya Enterprises, summons returned unserved as postal authorities informed that such parties did not exist at addresses. summons given to assessee Dasti, according to reply of assessee, served upon concerned party but such party did not appear before AO. In case of M/s Ambika Trading Co., proprietor of concern made statement against assessee and admitted that no sale has been made by this party to assessee and only fictitious bills have been issued. AO also made enquiries from transporters through whom goods were allegedly transported but they have denied to have transported any goods for aforesaid party to destination of assessee. Some of trucks whose numbers mentioned on sale bills belonging to assessee but in drivers account of these trucks there is no mention that any truck transported goods from Damtal to Hoshiarpur. crux of findings of AO proved that assessee had shown all fictitious and bogus purchases from these two parties. material was confronted to assessee but assessee instead of explaining issue through relevant and cogent material filed reply dt. 22nd March, 2000 and factually admitted involvement of his employees with regard to bogus purchases. Even statements of employees of assessee, namely, Shri Dharam Pal and Shri Kamal Kishore were recorded in which they have confirmed allegation of AO. This fact is also admitted by assessee in its reply dt. 30th March, 2000 which was filed at penalty stage before AO. These facts would show that assessee was aware of facts which were gathered by AO on enquiry and still assessee admitted fact as regards making bogus purchases. acts of servant are acts of master and master is liable for same acts. assessee if at all was aggrieved against quantum proceedings, could have challenged assessment order before CIT(A). assessee did not file any appeal against assessment order. Therefore, allegation of assessee that he was under duress to sign certain papers at quantum stage has no value and explanation of assessee to that effect is rejected. AO in assessment order has specifically recorded "Penalty proceedings under s. 271(1)(c) are initiated for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income." findings of AO in assessment order and enquiries conducted by him and admitted by assessee would clearly prove that AO was satisfied that assessee has concealed particulars of his income and has furnished inaccurate particulars of such income. AO initiated penalty on such facts and issued show- cause notice to assessee. assessee instead of explaining issue on merits filed reply dt. 30th March, 2000 before AO at penalty stage and agreed for levy of penalty. reply is reproduced in this order. Therefore, it is clear that assessee not only at quantum proceedings has admitted concealed income but also admitted at stage of penalty and has agreed to addition as well as penalty. reply of assessee at penalty stage is very specific with regard to admission of fact of bogus purchases. assessee did not file any reply on merits rebutting evidence collected by AO. assessee has, therefore, failed to offer explanation before AO in respect of facts material to computation of total income, therefore, same deemed to represent income in respect of which particulars have been concealed. Therefore, Expln. 1 to s. 271(1)(c) is clearly attracted in case of assessee. assessee has thus failed to make out case that it agreed to penalty and quantum addition in order to buy peace of mind. assessee admitted these facts because AO collected evidence against assessee through enquiries into matter. Hon ble Supreme Court in matter of CIT vs. Mussadilal Ram Bharose (1987) 60 CTR (SC) 34: (1987) 165 ITR 14 (SC) with regard to legal proposition on penalty held that "The position, therefore, in law is clear. If returned income is less than 80 per cent of assessed income, presumption is raised against assessee that assessee is guilty of fraud or gross or wilful neglect as result of which he has concealed income but this presumption can be rebutted. rebuttal must be on materials relevant and cogent. It is for fact finding body to judge relevancy and sufficiency of materials." Hon ble Supreme Court in matter of K.P. Madhusudhanan vs. CIT (2001) 169 CTR (SC) 489: (2001) 251 ITR 99 (SC) held: "The Explanation to s. 271(1)(c) is part of s. 271. When AO or A C issues notice under s. 271, he makes assessee aware that provisions thereof are to be used against him. These provisions include Explanation. By virtue of notice under s. 271 assessee is put to notice that, if he does not prove, in circumstances stated in Explanation, that his failure to return his correct income was not due to fraud or neglect, he shall be deemed to have concealed particulars of his income or furnished inaccurate particulars thereof, and, consequently be liable to penalty under section. No express invocation of Explanation to s. 271 in notice under s. 271 is necessary before provisions of Explanation are applied." In present case, assessee agreed to quantum addition and did not challenge assessment order before CIT(A) and thus assessment became complete and final at income computed by AO, which was agreed to by assessee after enquiry conducted by AO, in which material was found against assessee to have made bogus purchases. It is settled law that though quantum and penalty proceedings are different but findings in assessment order have probative value at penalty stage. assessee was given show-cause notice at penalty stage, therefore, if at all assessee was of view that addition is unjustified, should have explained issue on merits instead of admitting concealment of income and filing of inaccurate particulars. No reply whatsoever was filed before AO to explain issue on merits, which would clearly show that assessee has failed to offer any explanation before AO. In such circumstances, AO was justified in drawing adverse inference against assessee in accordance with law and Expln. 1 to s. 271(1)(c) of IT Act. AO has given sufficient opportunity of hearing to assessee but assessee did not seek any time from AO to rebut material collected by AO. Therefore, merely penalty was levied on 31st March, 2000 is not enough to conclude that no sufficient opportunity is given to assessee. learned counsel for assessee by referring to reply filed before CIT(A) submitted that assessee agreed for levy of minimum penalty on basis of discussion with AO and main point of discussion with AO was that no penalty shall be levied on addition made in trading account as all evidence required was filed by assessee and moreover, trading addition was being made on agreed basis. In respect of disallowance out of expenses claimed, assessee has agreed for levy of penalty to buy peace of mind. learned counsel for assessee tried to argue that assessee agreed to penalty only on disallowance of expenses. We do not agree with submissions of learned counsel for assessee. At quantum proceedings before AO at assessment stage, assessee in reply dt. 22nd March, 2000 on issue of bogus purchases submitted that there is no involvement of any partner of firm and there may be employees of assessee-firm who were in absence of partners making/indulging in committing fraud with firm for which partners are also making independent inquiries. In reply, dt. 30th March, 2000 by counsel for assessee at penalty stage in para 2 also it was stated that if there is any discrepancy in purchases or sales, this is absolutely not known to partners of firm and it may have been done by employees. reply filed by counsel for assessee before AO clearly proves that assessee after thought made up story to show that assessee has only agreed to penalty on disallowances of expenses in order to buy peace of mind. AO made enquiries as regards bogus purchases upon which partners of firm shifted burden upon employees and also referred to statements of Shri Dharam Pal and Shri Kamal Kishore. Therefore, it is clear that whatsoever might have been done by employees was regarding bogus purchases. We also find from assessment order that disallowance out of expenses have been made by A O on merit considering explanation of assessee. Therefore, it has nothing to do with involvement of any of employees of assessee. These facts would clearly prove that assessee intentionally and wilfully concealed particulars of income and filed inaccurate particulars of income. disallowance of expenses has nothing to do with issue of bogus purchases. Therefore, we reject this contention of learned counsel for assessee in this regard. AO in assessment order has specifically recorded his satisfaction with regard to initiating penalty proceedings for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. Therefore, findings of AO in assessment order and satisfaction recorded in end of assessment order would clearly prove that AO was satisfied with regard to concealment of particulars of income and filing inaccurate particulars of income by assessee and as such we do not find any infirmity in order of AO initiating penalty proceedings against assessee and as such decisions relied upon by learned counsel for assessee in matter of Munish Iron Stores (supra) and Ram Commercial Enterprises Ltd. (supra) are clearly distinguishable and are not applicable to this case. Hon ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in matter of Chhat Mull Aggarwal (supra) held that "There is no provision in IT Act whereby remedy of appeal against order of ITO or against order of AAC is barred if impugned order mentions that they had been passed on admission of assessee. provisions of s. 246(1)(c) of IT Act, entitle admission of assessee. provisions of s. 246(1)(c) of IT Act, entitle assessee to file appeal against order of ITO before AAC where assessee denied his liability to be assessed under Act. It would be different matter if AAC comes to conclusion that order was passed on admission of assessee and assessee is unable to explain that admission was wrongly recorded under some mistaken belief of fact and law." It was, therefore, held that "the assessee was able to convince AAC that admission made by him was not binding on him and was made under misapprehension that amount of Rs. 15,000 was being added for subsequent assessment year." However, in appeal before us assessee has not made out any case to show that admission was made under some mistaken belief of fact and law. Admission on quantum as well as penalty was very specific and as such decisions referred to by learned counsel for assessee are clearly distinguishable and are not applicable. Hon ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in matter of Banta Singh Kartar Singh (supra) considered provisions of s. 271(1)(c) in which ITO discovers that assessee-firm had obtained Hundi loans from M/s Gurdit Singh Swaraj Singh, Amritsar, who denied having advanced any loan to assessee and confessed that they were indulging in hawala business. Consequently, proceedings under s. 147(a) of IT Act were initiated and addition was made on surrender. Revised return was also filed disclosing additional income. However, assessee s petition for surrender was not treated as petition under s. 271(4A) of IT Act. Before AO, assessee agreed to be taxed of amount in question. assessee also agreed to levy of minimum penalty. assessee has accepted assessment order and no appeal was preferred. Consequently, penalty proceedings under s. 271(1)(c) were initiated and counsel for assessee at penalty proceedings stage specifically agreed to levy of penalty. Tribunal confirmed penalty as it was agreed by assessee and, therefore, refused to interfere in order. Hon ble Punjab & Haryana High Court, therefore, on such facts observed that it was on agreement of assessee, which agreement mentioned figure as well as rate of penalty, and on basis thereof that amount of penalty in question was imposed, held that Tribunal rightly placed reliance upon decision of Bombay High Court in case of Jivatlal Purtapshi (supra) for proposition that order based on agreement cannot give rise to grievances and same cannot be agitated in appeal. For these reasons reference, in question, was decided in favour of Revenue and against assessee. aforesaid decision of Hon ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in matter of Chhat Mull Aggarwal (supra) was dissented from by Hon ble Bombay High Court in matter of Rameshchandra & Co. (supra) in which it was held that assessment on basis of admission by assessee, appeal against assessment (was) not maintainable. It was held in this case that if assessee has made statement on facts, he could have no grievance against taxing authority taxing same in accordance with statement. If they have no grievance, he can file no appeal. Hon ble Bombay High Court relied upon its earlier decision in case of Jivatlal Purtapshi (supra). We may refer to decision of Bombay High Court in matter of Jivatlal Purtapshi (supra) in which it was held: "Held, that Department, having agreed to delete amount from assessment and having conceded deletion before AAC, cannot be held to be aggrieved by this part of order to enable it to file appeal to Tribunal; appeal of Department regarding deletion of amount was neither competent nor capable of being entertained by Tribunal." We have also considered both decisions of Hon ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in matter of Chhat Mull Aggarwal (supra) and Banta Singh Kartar Singh (supra). decision in matter of Chhat Mull Aggarwal (supra) is clearly distinguishable as referred to above, which is also dissented by Bombay High Court in later decision. earlier decision of Punjab & Haryana High Court in matter of Chhat Mull Aggarwal (supra) is on quantum but in case of Banta Singh Kartar Singh (supra), i.e., later decision is directly on penalty under s. 271(1)(c). Even though Hon ble Punjab & Haryana High Court has not considered its earlier decision in later decision in case of Banta Singh Kartar Singh (supra) but ratio in case of Chhat Mull Aggarwal (supra) is not applicable to present case as assessee has failed to explain before authorities below that admission made by it was under some mistaken belief of fact and law. Rather, assessee in very specific language admitted and agreed to quantum addition as well as agreed to penalty as discussed above. facts of both cases decided by Punjab & Haryana High Court are different. Therefore, contention of learned counsel for assessee that as per rule of per incuriam later decision in case of Banta Singh Kartar Singh (supra) is not applicable and has no precedent value is misconceived and is rejected. decision in case of Banta Singh Kartar Singh (supra) is, therefore, applicable in this appeal before us. We may discuss remaining cases relied upon by learned counsel for assessee: (1) In case of India Sea Foods (supra), it was held that there was no conscious concealment of income and this was not case where Revenue through its machinery unearthed concealment and as Tribunal on consideration of entire matter had found that there was no concealment as such by assessee it could not be said that Tribunal s finding was perverse or legally wrong and, therefore, there was no point for reference. (2) In case of Padgilwar Bros. (supra), it was held that even though there is admission that there was some concealment of income, yet before penalty is imposed, assessee will be entitled to say that there has been failure on part of ITO to follow up requirement of law and assessee is entitled to substantiate this contention. (3) In decision of D. Halappa Sons (supra), none of authorities had stated that assessee has consciously concealed particulars of its income. No penalty could be imposed merely on concession of assessee or his representative. (4) In decision of Ramesh Chander Kundra (supra), Tribunal held that appeal lies before AAC against agreed assessment where assessee agrees before ITO under erroneous view or under some misunderstanding. (5) In order of Patel Oil Mills (supra), Tribunal held that where onus shifted upon assessee has been satisfactorily explained, discharged, no penalty should be imposed. In this case admission made by assessee was not absolute and unqualified. facts considered in above cases are clearly distinguishable. We have recorded facts in preceding paras that AO made enquiries and found that purchases shown by assessee are bogus. assessee agreed at quantum stage as well as at penalty stage, as even at penalty stage assessee did not offer any explanation to material collected by AO. Therefore, it is not case of imposition of penalty on mere admission of assessee. AO collected sufficient relevant and cogent material and evidence against assessee to prove that assessee made bogus purchases. findings of AO have not been rebutted by assessee in any way. Even at penalty stage, assessee did not ask for cross-examination of any party and even did not rebut material evidence collected by AO. Therefore, decisions relied upon by learned counsel for assessee are not applicable to this case. quantum reply as is referred to by learned counsel for assessee have no relevancy in penalty proceedings as assessee did not file any appeal challenging assessment order. Considering above discussion, we are of view that penalty has been rightly imposed and CIT(A) was justified in placing reliance on later decision of Punjab & Haryana High Court in matter of Banta Singh Kartar Singh (supra). Therefore, CIT(A) was also justified in holding that assessee has no grievance at all to agitate matter in appeal before him as assessee agreed before AO on merits for levy of penalty. Therefore, we do not find it to be fit case for interfering in impugned orders. We confirm same and dismiss appeal of assessee. As result, appeal of assessee is dismissed. *** HOSHIARPUR ROLLER FLOUR MILLS v. INCOME TAX OFFICER