TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (9) TMI 846
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Raghubir Singh, Sr. DR ORDER PER S. RIFAUR RAHMAN, AM: 1. This appeal is filed by the assessee against the order passed by the ld. Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)/National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi [for short 'ld. CIT (A)] dated 09.01.2026 for the Assessment Year 2008-09. 2. At the time of hearing, ld. AR of the assessee brought to our notice the relevant facts of the c....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ade under section 69C of the Act. 3. He submitted that thus, the very addition forming the sole foundation for initiation and levy of penalty under section 271(1)(c) no longer survives. He submitted that once the quantum addition itself has been deleted on merits, there remains no basis for sustaining the consequential penalty proceedings. In this regard, he submitted that the above legal posit....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....order was set aside by the ld. CIT(A), but in the fresh assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer himself accepted the explanation of the assessee and deleted the entire addition made under section 69C of the Act. Consequently, the very foundation on which the impugned penalty under section 271(1) (c) was levied has ceased to exist. He submitted that it is well settled that where the quantum a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he assessee and deleted the entire addition of Rs. 16,92,270/- made under section 69C of the Act. We observed that the very addition forming the sole foundation for initiation and levy of penalty under section 271(1)(c) no longer survives. Accordingly, relying on the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Commissioner of Income-tax, Panchkula v. Jai Laxmi Rice Mills (supra), we hold ....