Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

The Hon'ble Tribunal has in the Wealth tax proceedings referred above, already extensively deliberated upon and decided the core issues which have a direct bearing on the BMA proceedings. Thus, the impugned order is at best capable of being classified as a case of mere change of opinion; hence, the assessment is bad in law. Reliance is also placed on the legal principle of rule of consistency' and Article 141 of the Constitution of India.

2. That the order dated 17 January 2019 passed by the AO under section 10(1) of the Black Money (Undisclosed Foreign Income and Assets) and Imposition of Tax Act, 2015 ("BMA"), which has merged into the order dated 26 April 2021 passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) suffers from patent ex facie errors, is bad in law, and is liable to be quashed, in that no new information whatsoever was received by the AO after the enactment of the BMA; on the contrary, the purported assets which are the subject-matter of the ostensible BMA proceedings have been the subject-matter of Income- tax Act, 1961 proceedings against the Appellant for AYs 1998-99 to 2014-15, and as such the jurisdictional threshold requirement itself is not fulfilled.Further, the material information/documents relied upon or referred to in previous AYs, have continued to remain the same. These facts have been duly considered by Revenue in the Income-tax Act proceedings, and 3 M r . Y as h o v a r d h an B i r l a also examined and confirmed by this Hon'ble Tribunal in the Wealth Tax Proceedings of the Assessee/Appellant.

3. The assessee has simply stated certain case specific facts and requested for keeping the notice issued u/s 10(1) of Black Money (Undisclosed Foreign Income and Assets) and Imposition of Tax Act, 2015 (BMA, 2015) in abeyance. It is to be noted that the WP filed by the applicant against the order of the hon'ble ITSC dated. 29th September, 2017 is under Income Tax Act, 1961 but the notice issued to the assessee u/s 10 (1) is related to the Black Money, 2015. These two things are quite different and can never be clubbed as scheme of taxation is completely different. Further, the AY for which WP filed is different (AY 1998-1999 to 2014-15) from the AY for which notice u/s 10 (1) of BMA, 2015 (AY 2016-17) issued. Hence, the claims of the assessee and his request to keep the notice u/s 10(1) in abeyance is emanating from his lack of awareness of the scheme and purpose of bring BMA, 2015.

4.2. The assessee is of the opinion that chapter XIX-A of the IT Act bars the Department to institute proceedings under BMA, 2015, as he has a right to settle the matter with the ITSC and if such settlement is done, there is no scope for pursuit of proceedings under BMA, 2015. It is also averred that issue of notice u/s 10(1) of BMA, pending the settlement process would aggravate the disputes and tantamount to abuse of process.

It is to be noted that the cause of action and basis on which notice issued u/s 10 (1) of the BMA is different from the issue before the Hon'ble ITSC. The claims of the assessee are unfounded and emanating from the ignorance of scope of undisclosed foreign asset and income under BMA, 2015, 4.3. In this context, the attention of the assessee is invited to the subsection 3 of section 4 (charging section under BMA, 2015) and clause (ii) to the section

4.5. On perusal of the clause (ii) to the section 5, it is very clear that: where the assessments related to foreign asset and income have been covered under the Income-Tax Act and such income only to be reduced from the income assessed under BMA, 2015, but not vice-a-versa. In other words, undisclosed foreign asset and income have to be assessed under Black Money Act only from 18 M r . Y as h o v a r d h an B i r l a the AY 2016-17. It is to be noted that this act came into force w.e.f 1st July, 2015 and hence the first year of assessment under BMA is AY 2016-17. In cases where foreign income or assets were assessed under Income Tax Act, 1961, before the application of the BMA, 2015, the assessee can seek reduction to the extent assessed under IT Act, 1961 from the total income assessed under BMA, 2015. But the reverse is not possible, 4.6. In the assessee's case, the foreign assets and income were considered and assessed under Income Tax Act vide assessment orders u/s 143(3) r.w.s.l53A for A.Y.s 98-99 to 2014-15 made on 30.03.2016 and served on the assessee on 31.3.2016. These assessment orders for A.Y.s 98-99 to 2014-15 were quashed by the Hon'ble High Court of Bombay in its order dated. 10.08.2016 on the ground that assessee has filed an application before the Hon'ble 1TSC for the years under consideration. Thus, practically no assessment under Income-Tax Act related to the undisclosed foreign asset and income has been made under IT Act. Thus, in the assessee's case, notice u/s 10(1) of BMA has rightly been issued and undisclosed foreign income and asset has to be assessed under the BMA, 2015. It is to be noted that no facility of settling income with the ITSC is available under the BMA, 2015.