##PAGE1##

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, ‘A’ BENCH

MUMBAI

BEFORE: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA, JUDICIAL MEMBER

&

SHRI MAKARAND VASANT MAHADEOKAR,

ACCOUNTANT MEMBER

ITA No.5776/Mum/2025

(Assessment Year :2008-09

Income Tax Officer Vs. M/s. Amaya Infrastructure

Room No.129, 1^st Floor Pvt. Ltd.,

Aayakar Bhavan Room No.R/3, Aai Jivdani

M.K. Road, Mumbai - Chawl

400 020 Darshan Chawl

Virar East

Palghar- 401 020

PAN/GIR No.AAGCA7304L

(Appellant) .. (Respondent

Assessee by Shri Tanzil Padvekar

Revenue by Shri Rajesh Kumar Yadav,

CIT DR

Date of Hearing 22/01/2026

Date of Pronouncement 29/01/2026

/ O R D E R

आदेश

PER AMIT SHUKLA (J.M):

The present appeal has been preferred by the Revenue

against the order dated 04.07.2025 passed by the National

Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi, whereby the learned

Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has deleted the

penalty levied under section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act,

1961, for the Assessment Year 2008-09.

2

ITA No.5766/Mum/2025

Amaya Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd.

2. The solitary ground raised by the Revenue reads as

under:

“Whether the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in deleting the penalty of Rs.

32,65,02,996/- without appreciating that the Revenue has filed

appeal before the Hon’ble Bombay High Court

(ITXAL/27362/2024) against quantum and the same is

pending?”

3. At the outset, it is an admitted and undisputed position,

fairly conceded by both the parties, that the very quantum

addition which constituted the sole foundation for the levy of

the impugned penalty stood deleted by this Tribunal vide its

order dated 10.11.2023. It is equally not in dispute that the

penalty under section 271(1)(c) had been levied entirely with

reference to the said addition and had no independent or

separable basis dehors the quantum proceedings.

4. Once the very basis on which the penalty was levied no

longer survives, the penalty itself cannot be sustained.

Penalty proceedings are purely consequential in nature. Once

the very addition on which the penalty rests does not survive

judicial scrutiny, the penalty cannot independently stand and

must necessarily fall. This legal position is well-settled and

requires no further elaboration.

5. The contention of the Revenue that an appeal against

the quantum order is pending before the Hon’ble Bombay

High Court does not, in our considered view, carry the matter

any further. The mere pendency of an appeal does not efface

3

ITA No.5766/Mum/2025

Amaya Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd.

the binding nature of the Tribunal’s order unless the same is

stayed, set aside or reversed by a superior forum. So long as

the quantum addition stands deleted by a subsisting order of

this Tribunal, the levy of penalty cannot be sustained on a

speculative premise that the quantum may be restored at

some indeterminate future point.

6. The learned CIT(A), therefore, in deleting the penalty,

has merely applied the settled judicial principle that penalty

proceedings cannot outlive the quantum addition which alone

gave rise to them. No perversity, illegality or infirmity can be

discerned in the impugned appellate order warranting any

interference.

7. In view of the foregoing discussion, we find no merit in

the ground raised by the Revenue. The same is accordingly

dismissed.

8. In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed.

Order pronounced on 29^th January, 2026.

Sd/- Sd/-

(MAKARAND VASANT (AMIT SHUKLA)

MAHADEOKAR)

ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER

Mumbai; Dated 29/01/2026

KARUNA, sr.ps

4

ITA No.5766/Mum/2025

Amaya Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd.

Copy of the Order forwarded to :

1. The Appellant

2. The Respondent.

3. CIT

4. DR, ITAT, Mumbai

5. Guard file.

//True Copy//

BY ORDER,

(Asstt. Registrar)

ITAT, Mumbai