Held, dismissing the appeal the Court held that  the notice under section 274 of the Act showed that the Assessing Officer did not indicate to the assessee as to whether this was a case of concealment of particulars or furnishing inaccurate particulars or the case where both charges were sought to be levelled against the assessee. The penalty order, as a matter of fact, injected greater confusion. There was obviously an internal inconsistency in the penalty order. The Assessing Officer stated that the assessee had furnished inaccurate particulars of its income in respect of disallowance of various additions made by the Assessing Officer and then, while computing the penalty that he imposed on the assessee, he stated that the assessee had furnished inaccurate particulars of income or concealed income. There was obviously no clarity in the mind of the Assessing Officer as to which limb of section 271(1)(c) of the Act got attracted for initiation, followed by imposition of penalty. No substantial question of law arose for consideration. (AY.2003-04)