JITENDRA KUMAR KESHARI,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE 20, NEW DELHI, NEW DELHI

Since the above captioned appeals were heard together and the facts in issues and grounds (except amounts) are identical, both the appeals are being disposed of by this common order for the sake of convenience and brevity. 3. The grounds of appeal are raised by the assessee in ITA No.3436/Del/2026 are as under: 1.(i) The order passed by the Ld. Commissioner of lncome Tax (Appeals) ld. CIT(A)I under section 250 in respect of penalty imposed u/s 271 AAB(1A) of the Income-tax Act, 1961.is bad in law, contrary to facts, violative of the principles of natural justice, and liable to be quashed. (ii) That penalty proceedings are quite separate proceedings & it should not be imposed as it customary to do so., 2. The Ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming the imposition of penalty under section 271AAB(1A) of the Act, where the quantum appeal is set aside by the Hon. ITAT, Delhi. However, the copy of order are awaited. 3. The Ld. CIT(A) erred in law and on facts in confirming the penalty in the hands of the Appellant despite the categorical and consistent stand taken by the Appellant since the very beginning that the impugned funds did not belong to him but belonged to the partnership firm, and therefore the initiation and confirmation of penalty in the hands of the Appellant is without jurisdiction, legally untenable, and liable to be deleted. 4. The Ld. CIT(A) failed to grant adequate opportunity of being heard and failed to deal with the detailed submissions and documentary evidences filed by the Appellant, thereby violating the principles of natural justice. 5. The Ld. CIT(A) erred in law and on facts, in not correctly appreciating the facts of the case and in drawing adverse inferences without any cogent material or evidence on record. 6. The impugned order passed by the Ld. CIT(A) is mechanical, nonspeaking, and devoid of proper reasoning and is therefore unsustainable in law. 7. The Appellant craves leave to add to, alter, amend, or withdraw any of the above grounds of appeal at or before the time of hearing.” 4. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee is an individual who was a partner in M/s Kesharwani Brothers, a firm engaged in trading of Foxnut (Makhana). A search and seizure operation under Section 132 of the Act was conducted on 31.10.2018 on M/s Faqir Chand Lockers and Vaults Private

Per contra, ld. DR relied on the order of the AO. 7. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the material available on record. We find that the coordinate Bench of ITAT in ITA 2689- 2690/Del/2025 vide order dated 17.04.2026 has deleted the quantum additions made. In such facts and circumstance, we invoke the latin maxim sublato fundamento cadit opus, which translates to "the foundation being removed, the superstructure falls". As the quantum addition has been deleted by ITAT for both the years, there is no basis to levy penalty u/s 270AAB of the Act. Accordingly, the grounds are allowed for both the years in aforesaid terms. 8. In the result, appeal filed by the assessee in ITA 3436-3437/Del/2026 are allowed. Order pronounced in the open court on 03.08.2026.