IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, RANCHI BENCH, RANCHI BEFORE SHRI GEORGE MATHAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI RATNESH NANDAN SAHAY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER (Assessment Year-2008-09)

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. This appeal filed by the assessee is 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 15/03/2024 for the Assessment Year (AY) 2008-09. The assessee 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 as under, on account of furnishing of inaccurate particulars. However,inthepenaltyorderpassed,thereisnoallegationofasingleword, as towhich particulars ofsuch expenses were inaccurate. The appellant filed itsdetailedexplanationwithallfactswhichwerenotfoundincorrectorfalse. The disallowance has been sustained in quantum appeal by Ld. CIT(Appeals) only on difference of opinion. The issue involved in respect of the disallowanceofexpensesisasunder:-

Assuchthepenaltyimposedforinaccurateparticularsisunjustified,arbitrary andwithoutanybasis,withoutappreciatingthefactsandthelawwhichisno moreres-integra,asaforesaid.

6. For that without prejudice to aforesaid grounds, Ld. AO was not justified in imposing higher penalty @ 150%, on the alleged tax sought to be evaded, withoutgivinganycogentground.

7. For that other grounds, if any will be argued / taken up at the time of hearing.

2. The facts of the case, in brief, are that the appellant company is a Government of India Enterprise and one of the five subsidiaries of Coal India Ltd. The assessment under Section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short, the Act) was passed by the Assessing Officer and following additions/disallowances were made:

The penalty proceedings