The show-cause notice revealed that the Assessing Officer had not specified the exact charge, whether concealment of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income, for which the penalty had been initiated. The Department had not controverted the fact showing any other penalty notice under section274 read with section 271(1)(c) . Finally, the penalty order revealed that the penalty had been levied observing that the assessee had filed inaccurate particulars of income, which showed that the Assessing Officer had applied both the limbs simultaneously, concealment of income and furnishing of inaccurate particulars for which the penalty had been initiated against the assessee. The two limbs carry different meaning and connotations. Hence, the facts reflected non-application of mind on the part of the Assessing Officer and he was not sure about the limb or exact charge for which the assessee had been penalised. Therefore, the penalty order stood vitiated for want of the principles of natural justice and hence, was liable to be quashed. (AY. 2011-2012)