The Assessing Officer made an addition by disallowing the claim of exemption of capital gains under section 54F. Thereafter, a penalty under section 270A was initiated, notice was issued to assessee, and an order was passed levying penalty at the rate of 200 per cent of tax payable on alleged under-reported income. CIT(A) affirmed the order of the Assessing Officer. On appeal, the Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer, while levying a penalty, had failed to identify a specific charge or default for levying a penalty. Notice initiating penalty proceedings issued under section 274 and penalty order revealed that the Assessing Officer levied a penalty both for under-reporting and for under-reporting as a consequence of misreporting of income. Mentioning of two distinct faults, which have different consequences for the levy of penalty, renders notices so issued to be void ab initio. Therefore, penalty levied without specifying the exact default committed by assessee was not sustainable in law and was deleted.(AY. 2018-19)