Tax Appeals: Penalties Deleted for Multiple Assessment Years

The Tribunal allowed all appeals, directing the deletion of penalties for AYs 2007-08 to 2012-13 and 2014-15. Penalties were deemed unsustainable due to non-specific charges, lack of corroborative evidence, and procedural lapses in penalty initiation and levy.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Confirmation of penalty under Section 271(1)(c) for Assessment Years 2007-08 to 2012-13 and 2014-15.
2. Admission of additional grounds of appeal.
3. Validity of penalty proceedings due to non-specific charges.
4. Use of incriminating statements and lack of cross-examination opportunity.
5. Applicability of Explanation 5A to Section 271(1)(c).
6. Specificity of charges in penalty notices.
7. Levy of penalty under Section 271AAB for AY 2014-15.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Confirmation of Penalty under Section 271(1)(c):
The appeals pertain to the confirmation of penalties for AYs 2007-08 to 2012-13 and 2014-15. The penalties stem from common facts, leading to a consolidated hearing and disposal for convenience. The penalties were confirmed by the first appellate authority, and the assessee contested these confirmations.

2. Admission of Additional Grounds of Appeal:
The assessee filed an additional ground of appeal, arguing that the penalty order was void ab initio due to non-specification of the limb under which the penalty was initiated. The Tribunal admitted this additional ground, considering it a legal ground that did not require new facts.

3. Validity of Penalty Proceedings Due to Non-Specific Charges:
The Tribunal found that the penalty proceedings were initiated on both limbs—concealment of income and furnishing inaccurate particulars of income—without specifying the exact charge. This non-specificity was evident in the penalty notice and order, leading to a conclusion of non-application of mind by the AO. The Tribunal cited several judicial precedents, including the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in CIT v. Samson Perinchery, confirming that non-specific charges in penalty notices vitiate the proceedings.

4. Use of Incriminating Statements and Lack of Cross-Examination Opportunity:
The Tribunal noted that the revenue relied on incriminating statements from third parties, which were not corroborated by any material evidence and were not confronted to the assessee. This lack of opportunity for cross-examination violated principles of natural justice, making the penalty unsustainable.

5. Applicability of Explanation 5A to Section 271(1)(c):
The first appellate authority invoked Explanation 5A for the first time during appellate proceedings. The Tribunal held that this invocation was unsustainable as it was not confronted to the assessee during penalty proceedings. Moreover, the condition of framing a specific charge was required before invoking Explanation 5A.

6. Specificity of Charges in Penalty Notices:
The Tribunal emphasized that penalty notices must specifically state the ground—either concealment of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars—for which the penalty is initiated. The use of a standard printed form without specifying the exact charge violates principles of natural justice, rendering the penalty proceedings void.

7. Levy of Penalty under Section 271AAB for AY 2014-15:
For AY 2014-15, the penalty was initiated under Section 271AAA but levied under Section 271AAB. The Tribunal found this switch indicative of non-application of mind. Additionally, Section 271AAA was not applicable as the search was conducted after 01/07/2012. Consequently, the penalty was deleted.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal allowed all the appeals, directing the deletion of penalties for AYs 2007-08 to 2012-13 and 2014-15. The penalties were found unsustainable due to non-specific charges, lack of corroborative evidence, and procedural lapses in penalty initiation and levy. The order was pronounced in the open court on 18th September 2020.

---