Tribunal held that the show-cause notice issued by the Assessing Officer did not specify the charge or charges against the assessee for levy of penalty, as required by law. The penalty was liable to be quashed. Applied  Padam Chand Pungliya v.  ACIT [2019 71 ITR (Trib) 562 (Jaipur), Ashok Bhatia v.  Dy. CIT (I. T. A. No. 869/Indore/2018 dated February 5, 2020) and Ravi Mathur v. Dy.CIT (I. T. A. No. 969/JP/2017 dated June 13, 2018) .  Tribunal also held that  even otherwise, section 271AAB of the Act contemplates imposition of a penalty pursuant to the disclosure of income in statement recorded under section 132(4) of the Act by the assessee. It was an admitted fact that no such statement had been recorded from the assessee. Thus, the levy of penalty was not sustainable. Nowhere in the assessment order was it stated that undisclosed income had been assessed. The assessment was made under section 143(3) of the Act and the returned income was accepted. Thus, the penalty levied under section 271AAB of the Act was liable to be quashed. (AY. 2013-14)