The AO levied the penalty u/s  271(1)( c) of the Act , as the quantum addition is affirmed by the Tribunal . CIT(A) affirmed the order of the AO. On appeal before the Tribunal , the assessee filed  an additional grounds and  raised the two additional legal grounds , ie. the penalty was levied without specifying the charge and since the substantial question of law has been admitted by the Honourable High Court against quantum additions hence ,  the penalty cannot be levied .The Honourable Tribunal admitted the  additional legal grounds and deleted the penalty on both the grounds . Honourable Tribunal relied on  Mohd. Farhan A.Shaik v. Dy.CIT (2021) 434 ITR 1 (FB) ( (Bom)( HC). The Honourable Tribunal also held that the r in the case of Veena Estate P. Ltd  v .CIT(2024) 461 ITR 483 ( Bom)( HC) has not decided on merits , the decision is merely an interim order and peculiar facts of the case , which has no binding effect on other assesses , relied on State of Assam v. Barak Upatyaka D.U. Karmacahri Sanstha ( CA No. 6492 of 2002 decided on 17 -3 2009 )(SC) . On admission of substantial question of law the Tribunal relied on CIT v. Nayan Builders and Developers ( 2014) 368 ITR 722 ( Bom)( HC)  , CIT v. Advaita Estate Development Pvt Ltd (2017) 98 CCH 97( Bom)( HC )  .Penalty is deleted .   ( ITA No. 6584 / 6585/6586 /Mum/ 2011 dt .13-12 -2024)(AY. 2002 -03 )