This Tribunal is taking a consistent view that if the notice issued by the AO proposing penalty on the assessee u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act he should make it clear whether the fault for which penalty is being proposed to be levied is for ‘concealment of particular of income’ or ‘for furnishing inaccurate particulars of such income’. It is noted that the AO has not specified the fault by not striking out which is not applicable, therefore, in the light of the decision of the Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in thecaseof CIT vs. SSA’s Emerald Meadows in ITA No.380 of 2015 dated 23.11.2015 wherein the Hon’ble Karnataka High Court following its own decision in thecaseof CIT vs Manjunatha Cotton and Ginning factory (2013) 359 ITR 565 took a view that imposing of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act is bad in law and invalid for the reason that the show cause notice u/s 274 of the Act does not specify the charge against the assessee as to whether it is for concealment of particulars of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income.