JUDGMENT judgment of court was delivered by Tarun Agarwala J.-The present appeal has been filed by Department under section 260A of Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act"). appeal was admitted on following substantial questions of law: "1. Whether Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was justified in deleting penalty imposed under section 271(1)(c) on grounds that reasons for imposition of penalty are different when in fact they are one and same? 2. Whether Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was justified in deleting penalty imposed under section 271(1)(c) on technical grounds, ignoring both orders of assessment and penalty? 3. Whether Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was justified in deleting penalty imposed under section 271(1)(c) ignoring provision/language section 273B which provides for exception to levy of penalty, and apart from exceptions provided no other ground can be held to be valid ground for deletion of penalty? 4. Whether, in facts and in circumstances of case, hon'ble Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was correct in setting aside orders of Revenue authorities and cancelling direction of learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) for levying penalty being 100 per cent. of tax of Rs. 35,03,011 under section 271(1)(c) of Income-tax Act, 1961, by holding that Assessing Officer has levied penalty on different reason than reason given in assessment order while recording satisfaction and while issuing show-cause notice, whereas Assessing Officer had levied penalty on same reason given in assessment order while recording satisfaction and while issuing show-cause notice?" facts leading to filing of appeal is that assessee is company deriving its income from cold storage for assessment year 2003-04. assessee filed his return along with audited copy of balance-sheet and profit and loss account. assessee was given notice under section 142(1) of Act requiring to file relevant information and evidence such as books of account. Since assessee did not comply with terms of notice, Assessing Officer proceeded under section 144A of Act and made ex parte best judgment assessment. Apart from various additions, relevant additions made by Assessing Officer was amount of Rs. 26,33,328, which related to advance given by farmers to assessee and sum of Rs. 35,03,011, which was towards loans given by various persons. On addition of Rs. 26,33,328 Assessing Officer held: "From above reply, it is clear that amount of Rs. 26,33,328 was advance rent received from farmers. It does not change that fact that advances so received are credit appearing in books as per balance-sheet of assessee. It is well settled law that under section 68, credits of loans as well as credits of business transaction are to be proved in same manner. assessee has to file documentary evidence or sufficient materials on record to prove identity creditworthiness and genuineness of transaction in respect of credits of advance rent received from each farmers. In response to notice, assessee told theory only. No evidence has been placed on record by assessee to prove each advance received from farmers as required by notice under section 142(1) as above." On addition of Rs. 35,03,011 Assessing Officer held: "From bank statements of account No. 01050/040104 maintained with State Bank of India, Hathras, it has been transpired that assessee deposited bank drafts amounting to Rs. 35,03,011. No account books were produced to examine nature and source of these drafts nor learned Additional Commissioner of Incometax Range-3, Etah, issued directions under section 144A on this issue, therefore, amount of drafts amounting to Rs. 35,03,011 is added in total income under section 69 of Income-tax Act, 1961." While making assessment, Assessing Officer found that assessee has concealed particulars of income and filed inaccurate particulars of income, therefore, held that proceedings under section 27(1)(c) of Act would be issued separately. assessee, being aggrieved, filed appeal and, thereafter, filed second appeal before Tribunal. Tribunal, by order dated May 25, 2007, deleted additions of Rs. 26,33,328. addition of Rs. 35,03,011 was confirmed by Tribunal. In meanwhile, Assessing Officer issued notice dated April 26, 2005, under section 271(1)(c) of Act for purpose of levying penalty. relevant extract of notice is extracted hereunder: "Whereas in course of proceedings before me for assessment year 2003-04 it appears to me that you have furnished inaccurate particulars of your income within meaning of section 271(1)(c) of Income-tax Act, 1961." perusal of aforesaid notice indicates that penalty notice was with regard to inaccurate particulars of income within meaning of section 271(1)(c) of Act and was not with regard to concealment of income. assessee submitted his reply asserting that there was no mens rea and return was filed without concealing any income. Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax after considering matter held that assessee could not prove identity and creditworthiness in respect of amount of Rs. 26,33,328, claimed to have been taken as advance from farmers and further source could not be proved in respect of Rs. 35,03,011, which was found to be deposited in bank. authority, consequently, held that assessee had intentionally concealed income and furnished inaccurate particulars of income and imposed minimum penalty of Rs. 22,55,104 under section 271(1)(c) of Act for furnishing inaccurate particulars of his income in return of income filed for assessment year 2003-04. assessee, being aggrieved, filed appeal, which was partly allowed. appellate authority held that since Tribunal had deleted addition of Rs. 26,33,328, question of imposing penalty of this amount does not survive. appellate authority, however, affirmed imposition of penalty in respect of addition of Rs. 35,03,011. appellate authority directed Assessing Officer to work out 100 per cent. of tax thereon, which would be amount of penalty. assessee, being aggrieved, filed second appeal before Tribunal, which was allowed and penalty was set aside. Department, being aggrieved, filed present appeal. In this background, we have heard Sri Dhananjay Awasthi, learned counsel for Department and Sri Rahul Agrawal, learned counsel for assessee at length. Section 271(1)(c) of Act reads as under: "(c) has concealed particulars of his income or furnished inaccurate particulars of such income." Section 271(1)(c) of Act is in two parts. first part relates to concealment of income and second part relates to furnishing of inaccurate income. In instant case, penalty notice has been issued for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income, namely, second part of section 271(1)(c). In Dilip N. Shroff v. Joint CIT [2007] 291 ITR 519 (SC), expression "concealment" and "furnishing inaccurate particulars" has been explained by Supreme Court, namely (page 546): "The expression'conceal' is of great importance. According to Law Lexicon, word'conceal' means: 'To hide or keep secret. word "conceal" is derived from latin concelare which implies con+celare to hide. It means "to hide or withdraw from observation; to cover or keep from sight; to prevent discovery of ; to withhold knowledge of. offence of concealment is thus direct attempt to hide item of income or portion thereof from knowledge of income-tax authorities.' In Webster's Dictionary,'inaccurate' has been defined as: 'not accurate, not exact or correct; not according to truth; erroneous; as inaccurate statement, copy or transcript'. It signifies deliberate act or omission on part of assessee. Such deliberate act must be either for purpose of concealment of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars." In view of penalty notice, inaccurate details was with regard to non- furnishing of correct address of farmers, which was in relation to advance taken from farmers to tune of Rs. 26,33,328. No inaccurate details was furnished by assessee with regard to addition of amount of Rs. 35,03,011 as is clear from paragraph 21 of assessment order, which has already been extracted aforesaid. In so far as inaccurate furnishing of details for amount of Rs. 26,33,328 is concerned, said amount was deleted by Income-tax Appellate Tribunal and, therefore, question of imposing any penalty on this amount no longer survives. With regard to penalty on amount of Rs. 35,03,011, Assessing Officer had added this amount as unexplained investment since assessee could not produce any books of account. penalty notice was with regard to furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income, which relates to furnishing of incorrect address. penalty notice was not issued with regard to concealment of income. In New Sorathia Engineering Co. v. CIT [2006] 282 ITR 642 (Guj), Gujarat High Court held that order of penalty must clearly state whether it is for concealment or for furnishing of inaccurate particulars. Rajasthan High Court in Addl. CIT v. Kejriwal Iron Stores [1987] 168 ITR 715 (Raj) held that Assessing Officer could not impose penalty on income on different grounds where penalty proceedings commenced on particular ground. In CIT v. Usha Marketing (P.) Ltd. [2011] 332 ITR 334 (Delhi), Delhi High Court held that every addition made by assessing authority would not result in penalty being imposed under section 271(1)(c) unless parameters of Explanation 1 to section were satisfied. Similarly, in CIT v. Reliance Petroproducts Pvt. Ltd. [2010] 322 ITR 158 (SC), Supreme Court held that merely because assessee had claimed expenditure, which claim was not accepted or was not acceptable to Revenue, that by itself would not attract penalty under section 271(1)(c). If contention of Revenue is accepted then in each case of every return where claim made is not accepted by Assessing Officer for any reason, assessee will invite penalty under section 271(1)(c). This is not intendment of Legislature. assessment order clearly indicates that audited copy of balance-sheet and profit and loss account were filed, which were not accepted by Assessing Officer and best judgment was passed. In entirety of circumstances, we find that since penalty notice was only confined to furnishing of inaccurate particulars and was not with regard to concealment of income, imposition of penalty for unexplained deposit in bank amounting to Rs. 35,03,011 could not be imposed. Tribunal was justified in deleting this penalty. In light of aforesaid, appeal fails and is dismissed. questions of law are answered against Department and in favour of assessee. *** Commissioner of Income-tax v. Sewak Ice and Cold Storage P. Ltd