Specific penalty charge in notice is mandatory; ambiguous concealment and inaccurate-particulars allegations invalidate the penalty proceedings.

A penalty notice must clearly specify whether proceedings concern concealment of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars. Where the assessment record refers to one charge but the notice retains both alternatives, and the penalty order also reflects uncertainty, the notice fails to communicate the precise allegation required in penal proceedings. Such ambiguity vitiates the penalty proceedings and cannot support a penalty. The notes state that the penalty was deleted because the notice did not identify the applicable charge.

---

---

Issues: Whether penalty for concealment of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars could be sustained where the notice did not specify the applicable charge.

Analysis: Although initiation in the assessment order referred to furnishing inaccurate particulars, the notice issued under the penalty provision used both alternatives without identifying the precise limb. The penalty order likewise referred to concealment of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars, demonstrating uncertainty regarding the charge. A clear satisfaction and communication of the specific charge are essential in penal proceedings; a notice retaining both inapplicable alternatives vitiates the penalty proceedings.

Conclusion: The penalty was deleted in favour of the assessee because the notice failed to specify the charge under which penalty was initiated.

Ratio Decidendi: A penalty notice that does not clearly specify whether the charge is concealment of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars is invalid and cannot sustain a penalty.

---