Held, that a charge/set aside by a judicial forum cannot be reopened in parallel proceedings. The authority under the 2015 Act had alleged several transactions listed therein as illegal transactions. A careful perusal of the notice clearly indicated that the authority under the Act had prejudged and formed an opinion that the petitioner was the beneficial owner of  Romulus Assets  Ltd (RAL)  This contention of the Revenue had not been accepted by the Tribunal which held that the Assessing Officer had not discharged the burden to prove that the petitioner was the beneficial owner of RAL.(Jitendra Virwaani v. Dy.CIT  (2022)28 ITR (Trib) -OL 435 (Bang.)  At least a portion of the notice was based on the allegations set aside by the Tribunal. Therefore, the notice was not valid. Strict rules of interpretation will have to be followed while dealing with fiscal statutes. The Black Money (Undisclosed Foreign Income and Assets) and Imposition of tax Act, 2015 has been enacted to deal with the problem of undisclosed foreign income and assets. Penalties defined in Chapter IV and the punishments described in Chapter V, entail serious consequences. It is settled that when a citizen is called upon to answer a statutory notice, such notice must be clear and unambiguous ; describe the violation committed by the notice, the material relied upon by the statutory authority, to enable the notice to submit his defence. (AY. 2022-23)