Court held that  it would be too technical and pedantic to take the view that because in the printed notice the inapplicable portion was not struck off, the order of penalty should be set aside even though in the assessment order it was clearly mentioned that penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) had been initiated separately for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income, (iv) Penalty cannot be imposed for alleged breach of one limb of s. 271(1)(c) of the Act while proceedings were initiated for breach of the other limb of s. 271(1)(c). This vitiates the order of penalty, (v) Threat of penalty cannot become a gag and / or haunt an assessee for making a claim which may be erroneous or wrong  Concealment of particulars of income was not the charge against the appellant, the charge being furnishing inaccurate particulars of income.  it is trite that penalty cannot be imposed for alleged breach of one limb of Section 271(1)(c) of the Act while penalty proceedings were initiated for breach of the other limb of Section 271(1)(c). This has certainly vitiated the order of penalty.  Followed CIT v .Reliance Petroproducts Ltd (.2010) 322 ITR 158 (SC)   (Referred   v CIT Vs. SSA’s Emerald Meadows, (2016) 73 Taxmann.com 248(SC)/ 242 Taxman 180 (SC) ;  CIT Vs. SSA’s Emerald Meadows, (2016) 73 Taxmann.com 241(Karn)(HC)   CIT v. Manjunath Cotton and Ginning Factory   359 ITR 565  ( Kran) (HC) , CIT v . Samson Pernchery, (2017) 98 CCH 39 (Bombay); PCIT Vs. New Era Sova Mine, (2019) SCC OnLine Bom.1032;  PCIT Vs. Goa Coastal Resorts & Recreation Pvt.Ltd., (2019) 106CCH 0183 ( 2020) 113 taxmann.com 574  (Bom) (HC) ; PCIT v . Shri Hafeez S. Contractor, ITA Nos.796 and 872 of 2016 dt.  11.12.2018. (  ITA NO 958 of 2017 dt 12-06 2020 (AY.2003 -04)