| The Tax Publishers2020 TaxPub(DT) 1589 (Bom-HC) BLACK MONEY (UNDISCLOSED FOREIGN INCOME AND ASSETS) AND IMPOSITION OF TAX ACT, 2015
Section 4(3)
Where petitioner challenged notices issued under section 10 of Black Money (Undisclosed Foreign Income and Assets) and Imposition of Tax Act, 2015, contending that window of opportunity given under sections 59 to 63 of the Black Money Act to make a declaration was not available, as petitioner was already facing a proceeding under IT Act, 1961, it was held that while revenue may proceed pursuant to the notices issued under section 10, but no coercive measures could be taken against petitioners.
|
Computation of undisclosed income and assets - Validity - Income included in the total undisclosed foreign income and asset under the Black Money Act, whether form part of the total income under Income Tax Act -
Petitioners were alleged to be holding undisclosed foreign accounts. Summons under section 131 was issued to petitioners. However, petitioners denied having any such interest claimed by revenue. In meanwhile Black Money (Undisclosed Foreign Income and Assets) and Imposition of Tax Act, 2015, came into force. Case of petitioner was that even after coming into force of Black Money Act, revenue continued to proceed against petitioners under Income Tax Act. Notice under section 148 was issued to petitioners. Thereafter, notices were issued to petitioners under section 10(1) of the Black Money Act to produce details in connection with assessment year 2017-18. While passing assessment order on reopening, reference was made to section 4(3) of the Black Money Act to the effect that the income included in the total undisclosed foreign income and asset under the Black Money Act whether would not form part of the total income under Income Tax Act. It was mentioned that merit of escaped income was not gone through which was left to be decided by authorities under the Black Money Act. Held: Case of petitioner was that unlike other persons in respect of whom the Black Money Act is sought to be made applicable, petitioners and similar category of assessees under the Act would be statutorily barred from making a declaration in terms of section 59 of the Black Money Act. This, according to petitioners, was highly arbitrary and discriminatory.To enable a person to come clean and to shield himself from rigours of the said Black Money Act, a small window is provided in section 59 to make a declaration of such undisclosed foreign income and asset. The window was for the period up to 30th day of September, 2015. According to the petitioners, they were statutorily debarred from making a declaration under section 59 in view of section 71(d). In Shrivardhan Mohta's case, Calcutta High Court dismissed the writ petition seeking a declaration that provisions of the Black Money Act should be applied prospectively and, therefore, the consequential notices should be quashed. Thus, while revenue may proceed pursuant to the notices issued under section 10, but no coercive measures could be taken against petitioners.
Distinguished:Gautan Khaitan, (2019) 110 Taxmann.com 272.
REFERRED : Shrivardhan Mohta v. UOI (2019) 102 Taxmann.com 273.
FAVOUR : Partly in favour of petitioner.
A.Y. :
 SUBSCRIBE FOR FULL CONTENT
|