IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, RANCHI BENCH, RANCHI BEFORE SHRI GEORGE MATHAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI RATNESH NANDAN SAHAY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER (Assessment Year-2006-07)

D.C.I.T., Central Coalfield Ltd., Circle-1, 4th Floor, Central revenue Building Vs.

Ranchi. Annexee, 5A, Main Road, Ranchi-834001 (Jharkhand)

PAN No. AAACC 7476 R Appellant/ Revenue Respondent/ Assessee ITA No. 207/Ran/2024 (Assessment Year-2006-07)

M/s Central Coalfields Ltd., D.C.I.T., Darbhanga House, Kutchery Road, Circle-1, Vs.

Ranchi-834001 (Jharkhand) Ranchi.

PAN No. AAACC 7476 R Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/ Revenue Assessee represented by Shri M.K. Chowdhary &

Shri Devesh Poddar, A.Rs.

Department represented by Shri Rajib Jain, CIT-DR Date of hearing 05/01/2026 Date of pronouncement 20/02/2026

O R D E R

PER: BENCH

1. The appeal filed by the revenue and the cross appeal filed by the assessee are directed against the order of the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi/learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), [in short, the ld. CIT(A)] dated 12/03/2024 for the Assessment Year (AY) 2006-07. The Revenue in its appeal has raised following grounds of appeal:

"1. The Ld. CIT(A) had erred in restricting the penalty to its minimum, while the AOwasfullyjustifiedinimposingpenalty@150%oftaxsoughttobeevaded.

The Assessee has given inaccurate particulars of allowable expenses and the same has been confirmed by the Ld.CIT(A) in his order relating to the Assessmentorder.

2. TheLd.CIT(A)failedtoappreciatethattheassesseehadfurnishedinaccurate particulars of Income and to that extent has concealed its income. The Ld.CIT(A) decreased the quantum of penalty to its minimum i.e. 100% of the taxsoughttobeevaded.

3. The CIT(A) failedto appreciate that the assessee is aided by a battery ofCAS andadvocates,stillitdeliberatelyfiledinaccurateparticularsofincome.

4. Othergrounds,ifany,willberaisedatthetimeofhearing."

The assessee, on the other hand, in its appeal, has raised following grounds of appeal:

"1. Forthattheimpugnedorderpassedagainstorderu/s271(1)(c)isunjustified, uncalledforonfactsandinlawandisliabletobequashed.

2. For that Ld. AO and the Ld. CIT(A) were not justified for not keeping the penalty proceedings in abeyance till disposal of the quantum appeal by Hon'ble ITAT. Moreover, Ld. CIT(A) has further erred in not appreciating judiciously, the facts of the disallowance of expenses from the assessment orderandthewrittensubmissionsfiledbytheappellant.

3. For that Ld. CIT(A) have erred in not appreciating judiciously the decisions of Hon'ble Apex Court, High Courts and the jurisdictional ITAT, which were binding upon him, which had held that that the notice issued under section 274 read with section 271 was bad in law, as it did not specify under which limb of section 271(1)(c) penalty proceedings had been initiated, i.e., the notice failed to specify whether the penalty was imposed for concealment of income, furnishing inaccurate particulars, or both. As such the entire penalty proceedingisvoid-ab-initioandliabletobequashed.

4. For that Ld. AO and the Ld. CIT(A) have erred on facts and in law, in holding that the appellant has furnished inaccurate particulars of income without appreciating the fact that in the assessment order the "Inaccurate particulars" has not beenmentioned at single place.Moreover,it is asettled position of law, settled by Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of CIT vs. Reliance Petroproducts(P)Ltd.(2010)322ITR158(SC)andothercatenaofJudgments that mere disallowance of claim for expenditure by itself would not tantamount to furnishing inaccurate particulars of income and all facts relatingtosamehadbeendisclosedbyassessee,penaltycouldnothavebeen imposed. As such the penalty imposed only on additions/ disallowance of expensesondifferenceofopinionisunjustified,arbitraryandillegal.

5. Forthatthepenaltyu/s271(1)(c)asimposedbyAO&sustainedbyCIT(A)on disallowances of following expenses on account of furnishing of inaccurate particulars. However, in the penalty ord