The s.10 notice does not say which year it relates to, and my foreign account was inherited and already put in a revised return. Can the assessment stand?
No, on both counts. A notice under s.10(1) that omits the relevant financial year, coupled with delay in initiating the proceedings, goes to the root of jurisdiction, and s.81 of the Black Money Act, being in pari materia with s.292B of the Income-tax Act, protects only clerical or technical mistakes and not jurisdictional infirmities. Separately, an inherited foreign deposit whose source is explained and which was disclosed in revised returns and by a letter to the jurisdictional officer before the s.10(1) notice is not an undisclosed asset within s.2(11), and historic interest of earlier years cannot be charged under the Black Money Act at all.
Decided by the ITAT (Rajesh Kumar, Accountant Member and Pradip Kumar Choubey, Judicial Member) on 2026-01-20, reported as BMA No. 4/Kol/2025 and C.O. No. 71/Kol/2025. It bears on section BMA s.10(1), section BMA s.10(3), section BMA s.81, section BMA s.2(11), section BMA s.3(1), section BMA s.4(1), section BMA s.4(1)(c), section BMA s.59, section BMA s.18(4), section 139(5), section 147 of the Income Tax Act 1961, in Assessment & Scrutiny, Appeals, Reassessment & Reopening and How Tax Law Is Read matters.
The fullest reasoning located on three points at once - the content a s.10(1) notice must have, the limits of the curative provision in s.81, and the boundary between the charge on foreign income, which runs only from assessment year 2016-17, and the charge on a foreign asset under the proviso to s.3(1). It also shows the cross-objection route under s.18(4) being used to defeat the Revenue's own appeal.
Binding on the AO and CIT(A) within the Tribunal's jurisdiction. Persuasive elsewhere.
Read aloud by your device. Press again to stop.
The assessee held an HSBC (Jersey) account with initial deposits of GBP 32.5 lakh, said to be capital inherited from his late father in 2008 and 2011 through his uncle, and a Bank of America account. Summons under s.131(1A) of the Income-tax Act issued on 20 October 2016 was followed by statements on 24 October 2016, 5 December 2016 and 14 February 2017. Revised returns for assessment years 2015-16 and 2016-17 were filed on 4 December 2016 and processed under s.143(1), and on 24 January 2017 the assessee wrote to his jurisdictional Income Tax Officer, Ward 34(2), Kolkata, disclosing the accounts and asking that the earlier years be regularised by reopening. The ADIT was authorised as Assessing Officer on 28 March 2018 and issued notice under s.10(1) of the Black Money Act on 13 April 2018, which did not mention any financial or assessment year. The assessment order under s.10(3) was passed on 5 March 2021 for assessment year 2019-20, total credits being taken at Rs 30,75,85,044 and half of that, Rs 15,37,92,522, assessed in the assessee's hands. The Commissioner (Appeals) by order dated 22 April 2025 deleted Rs 29,72,32,975 but confirmed Rs 52,77,108 of historic interest for financial years 2009-10 to 2013-14. The Revenue appealed and the assessee filed a cross-objection.
The cross-objection was allowed and the Revenue's appeal dismissed as infructuous (paras 10 to 12). The notice under s.10(1) dated 13 April 2018 was bad for omitting the relevant financial year and for delay, a defect not curable under s.81 (para 9.5). The assets were not undisclosed within s.2(11) and s.4(1)(c), the source being explained and the disclosure having preceded the notice (para 9.4). The asset having come to the Department's notice during financial year 2016-17, assessment year 2017-18 was the only possible year of chargeability and the Commissioner (Appeals) was wrong to uphold assessment in assessment year 2019-20 (para 9.7). The addition of Rs 52,77,108 of interest for financial years 2009-10 to 2013-14 was held to be without authority of law and deleted (para 9.9).
On the charge, the Tribunal held that s.3(1) operates prospectively from assessment year 2016-17 and that the proviso introduces a limited mechanism only for fixing the year in which an undisclosed foreign asset, not foreign income, is charged on its value; s.4(1) separates foreign income in clauses (a) and (b) from foreign assets in clause (c), and clauses (a) and (b) are controlled by the charging words of s.3(1) (para 9). Section 59 is deliberately restrictive and deals only with undisclosed assets acquired from income chargeable to tax before assessment year 2016-17 (para 9.3). On 'undisclosed', the Tribunal held that where the source is fully explained and not chargeable under the Income-tax Act the asset cannot be treated as undisclosed, and drew on K.P. Varghese for the proposition that concealment implies deliberate concealment so that a voluntary bona fide disclosure cannot be brought to tax under a deeming fiction meant to curb evasion (para 9.4). On the notice, it held that the omission of the year together with the delay went to the root of jurisdiction and that s.81, being in pari materia with s.292B, protects only clerical or technical mistakes, relying on Kurban Hussain Ibrahimji Mithiborwala for the proposition that an invalid notice makes the whole proceeding void (para 9.5). On the year, the subsequent administrative authorisation of the ADIT in March 2018 could not defer the year of chargeability fixed by the proviso (para 9.7). On the interest, it followed the reasoning that undisclosed foreign income is chargeable under the Black Money Act only from assessment year 2016-17 while the year of acquisition of a foreign asset is irrelevant, and held that the Act cannot be invoked to tax retrospectively historic income of earlier years which was voluntarily disclosed and separately assessable under the Income-tax Act (paras 9.8 and 9.9).
such a defect is not curable under section 81 of the BMA
Upload it and we will read it, work out your deadline and draft the reply. A CA reviews before anything is filed.
Handle my notice → Ask a CA on WhatsAppNo, on both counts. A notice under s.10(1) that omits the relevant financial year, coupled with delay in initiating the proceedings, goes to the root of jurisdiction, and s.81 of the Black Money Act, being in pari materia with s.292B of the Income-tax Act, protects only clerical or technical mistakes and not jurisdictional infirmities. Separately, an inherited foreign deposit whose source is explained and which was disclosed in revised returns and by a letter to the jurisdictional officer before the s.10(1) notice is not an undisclosed asset within s.2(11), and historic interest of earlier years cannot be charged under the Black Money Act at all. This was decided by the ITAT (Rajesh Kumar, Accountant Member and Pradip Kumar Choubey, Judicial Member) and bears on section BMA s.10(1), section BMA s.10(3), section BMA s.81, section BMA s.2(11), section BMA s.3(1), section BMA s.4(1), section BMA s.4(1)(c), section BMA s.59, section BMA s.18(4), section 139(5), section 147 of the Income Tax Act 1961. It is reported as BMA No. 4/Kol/2025 and C.O. No. 71/Kol/2025. The fullest reasoning located on three points at once - the content a s.10(1) notice must have, the limits of the curative provision in s.81, and the boundary between the charge on foreign income, which runs only from assessment year 2016-17, and the charge on a foreign asset under the proviso to s.3(1). It also shows the cross-objection route under s.18(4) being used to defeat the Revenue's own appeal. If it applies to you, the first step is this: Read the s.10(1) notice for a financial or assessment year; if it names none, take the point as jurisdictional and not curable under s.81.
The assessee held an HSBC (Jersey) account with initial deposits of GBP 32.5 lakh, said to be capital inherited from his late father in 2008 and 2011 through his uncle, and a Bank of America account. Summons under s.131(1A) of the Income-tax Act issued on 20 October 2016 was followed by statements on 24 October 2016, 5 December 2016 and 14 February 2017. Revised returns for assessment years 2015-16 and 2016-17 were filed on 4 December 2016 and processed under s.143(1), and on 24 January 2017 the assessee wrote to his jurisdictional Income Tax Officer, Ward 34(2), Kolkata, disclosing the accounts and asking that the earlier years be regularised by reopening. The ADIT was authorised as Assessing Officer on 28 March 2018 and issued notice under s.10(1) of the Black Money Act on 13 April 2018, which did not mention any financial or assessment year. The assessment order under s.10(3) was passed on 5 March 2021 for assessment year 2019-20, total credits being taken at Rs 30,75,85,044 and half of that, Rs 15,37,92,522, assessed in the assessee's hands. The Commissioner (Appeals) by order dated 22 April 2025 deleted Rs 29,72,32,975 but confirmed Rs 52,77,108 of historic interest for financial years 2009-10 to 2013-14. The Revenue appealed and the assessee filed a cross-objection. The matter was decided on 2026-01-20 by the ITAT (Rajesh Kumar, Accountant Member and Pradip Kumar Choubey, Judicial Member). On those facts the ITAT held as follows. The cross-objection was allowed and the Revenue's appeal dismissed as infructuous (paras 10 to 12). The notice under s.10(1) dated 13 April 2018 was bad for omitting the relevant financial year and for delay, a defect not curable under s.81 (para 9.5). The assets were not undisclosed within s.2(11) and s.4(1)(c), the source being explained and the disclosure having preceded the notice (para 9.4). The asset having come to the Department's notice during financial year 2016-17, assessment year 2017-18 was the only possible year of chargeability and the Commissioner (Appeals) was wrong to uphold assessment in assessment year 2019-20 (para 9.7). The addition of Rs 52,77,108 of interest for financial years 2009-10 to 2013-14 was held to be without authority of law and deleted (para 9.9).
On the charge, the Tribunal held that s.3(1) operates prospectively from assessment year 2016-17 and that the proviso introduces a limited mechanism only for fixing the year in which an undisclosed foreign asset, not foreign income, is charged on its value; s.4(1) separates foreign income in clauses (a) and (b) from foreign assets in clause (c), and clauses (a) and (b) are controlled by the charging words of s.3(1) (para 9). Section 59 is deliberately restrictive and deals only with undisclosed assets acquired from income chargeable to tax before assessment year 2016-17 (para 9.3). On 'undisclosed', the Tribunal held that where the source is fully explained and not chargeable under the Income-tax Act the asset cannot be treated as undisclosed, and drew on K.P. Varghese for the proposition that concealment implies deliberate concealment so that a voluntary bona fide disclosure cannot be brought to tax under a deeming fiction meant to curb evasion (para 9.4). On the notice, it held that the omission of the year together with the delay went to the root of jurisdiction and that s.81, being in pari materia with s.292B, protects only clerical or technical mistakes, relying on Kurban Hussain Ibrahimji Mithiborwala for the proposition that an invalid notice makes the whole proceeding void (para 9.5). On the year, the subsequent administrative authorisation of the ADIT in March 2018 could not defer the year of chargeability fixed by the proviso (para 9.7). On the interest, it followed the reasoning that undisclosed foreign income is chargeable under the Black Money Act only from assessment year 2016-17 while the year of acquisition of a foreign asset is irrelevant, and held that the Act cannot be invoked to tax retrospectively historic income of earlier years which was voluntarily disclosed and separately assessable under the Income-tax Act (paras 9.8 and 9.9). In the words reproduced by the source cited on this page: "such a defect is not curable under section 81 of the BMA" The decision followed or applied K. Mohammed Haris v. Income-tax Department (2023) 147 taxmann.com 370 - relied on for the proposition that foreign assets disclosed in a revised return within the time allowed by s.139(5) do not attract ss.4 and 50 of the Black Money Act; K.P. Varghese v. ITO (1981) 131 ITR 597 (SC) - applied on the meaning of concealment; CIT v. Kurban Hussain Ibrahimji Mithiborwala (1971) 82 ITR 821 (SC) - applied on an invalid notice voiding the proceeding; PCIT (Central) v. Income Tax Settlement Commission (2019) 111 taxmann.com 176 - relied on for the distinction between the charge on foreign income and the charge on a foreign asset.
It was decided by the ITAT on 2026-01-20 and is reported as BMA No. 4/Kol/2025 and C.O. No. 71/Kol/2025. Binding on the AO and CIT(A) within the Tribunal's jurisdiction. Persuasive elsewhere. A Tribunal decision binds the assessing officer and the Commissioner (Appeals) within that Tribunal's jurisdiction, and is persuasive before other benches. It is not binding on a High Court, and a contrary co-ordinate bench decision will be argued against you, so check whether the point has been taken the other way before you build a reply around it. On section BMA s.10(1), section BMA s.10(3), section BMA s.81, section BMA s.2(11), section BMA s.3(1), section BMA s.4(1), section BMA s.4(1)(c), section BMA s.59, section BMA s.18(4), section 139(5), section 147, the practical question is whether the facts of your own notice match the facts of this case closely enough for the same rule to apply.
It helps the taxpayer. The cross-objection was allowed and the Revenue's appeal dismissed as infructuous (paras 10 to 12). The notice under s.10(1) dated 13 April 2018 was bad for omitting the relevant financial year and for delay, a defect not curable under s.81 (para 9.5). The assets were not undisclosed within s.2(11) and s.4(1)(c), the source being explained and the disclosure having preceded the notice (para 9.4). The asset having come to the Department's notice during financial year 2016-17, assessment year 2017-18 was the only possible year of chargeability and the Commissioner (Appeals) was wrong to uphold assessment in assessment year 2019-20 (para 9.7). The addition of Rs 52,77,108 of interest for financial years 2009-10 to 2013-14 was held to be without authority of law and deleted (para 9.9). It arises in Assessment & Scrutiny, Appeals, Reassessment & Reopening and How Tax Law Is Read matters, on section BMA s.10(1), section BMA s.10(3), section BMA s.81, section BMA s.2(11), section BMA s.3(1), section BMA s.4(1), section BMA s.4(1)(c), section BMA s.59, section BMA s.18(4), section 139(5), section 147 of the Income Tax Act 1961, and was decided by Rajesh Kumar, Accountant Member and Pradip Kumar Choubey, Judicial Member. Before relying on it, read the source linked on this page and check whether it has since been distinguished, overruled or overtaken by an amendment to the Income Tax Act. In practice the steps that follow from it are these. Where the asset came to the Department's notice in an earlier financial year, work out the year of chargeability fixed by the proviso to s.3(1) and check the year actually assessed; an administrative authorisation of a new officer does not defer it. If you disclosed the asset in a revised return under s.139(5) or by letter before the s.10(1) notice, put those documents and dates at the front of the record. Separate the asset from the income: interest of years before assessment year 2016-17 is outside the charge on foreign income, whatever happens to the asset. Where the Revenue has appealed, file a cross-objection under s.18(4) within thirty days of the notice of appeal and take the jurisdictional grounds there, which is how this case was won.
Searched for later treatment; none was found. That is not the same as a source affirming it. Decided 20 January 2026. Nothing applying, doubting or overruling it was located. It runs with the Delhi Bench in Shantanu Bhowmick on the limits of s.81 and with the Mumbai Bench in Anandi Kaushik Laijawala on the year fixed by the notice, though it cites neither. The Revenue's appeal having been dismissed as infructuous rather than on merits, the substantive dispute is untested at High Court level. No source could be cited for that finding. Checking whether an authority still stands matters as much as knowing what it held: a decision may be overruled on one point and survive on another, or the provision it interprets may have been amended since. Read the source and the editor's note on this page before relying on it in a reply to an Assessing Officer or in an appeal.
The citation of K. Mohammed Haris given above is the citation printed inside this order; the Karnataka High Court judgment itself was not opened, and in a different order of the Chennai Bench it is referred to as K Mohammad Haris v ITO (2022) 448 ITR 707 (Kar), so the name and citation need checking before it is cited. Para 9.5 as reproduced records the Court's reliance on Kurban Hussain twice, once as 82 ITR 821 and once as 82 ITR 82; the correct report is the former. The order identifies the companion Revenue appeal as BMA No. 4/Kol/2025 and the cross-objection as C.O. No. 71/Kol/2025; no reporter citation is printed on the page read. This library shows the verification state of every entry openly. This entry has not yet been read in full by a chartered accountant. The summary reflects the sources listed on this page. Read the source before you rely on it in a reply to an Assessing Officer or in an appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) or the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal.
The cross-objection was allowed and the Revenue's appeal dismissed as infructuous (paras 10 to 12). The notice under s.10(1) dated 13 April 2018 was bad for omitting the relevant financial year and for delay, a defect not curable under s.81 (para 9.5). The assets were not undisclosed within s.2(11) and s.4(1)(c), the source being explained and the disclosure having preceded the notice (para 9.4). The asset having come to the Department's notice during financial year 2016-17, assessment year 2017-18 was the only possible year of chargeability and the Commissioner (Appeals) was wrong to uphold assessment in assessment year 2019-20 (para 9.7). The addition of Rs 52,77,108 of interest for financial years 2009-10 to 2013-14 was held to be without authority of law and deleted (para 9.9).
TaxSphere, “Ajay Kumar Patel v Addl. CIT”, https://taxnotice.vittsphere.com/caselaw/case/ajay-kumar-patel-v-addl-cit-bma-10-notice-without-a-year/ (validity last checked 2026-09-16)
The judgment itself is a government work and may be quoted freely. The summary, the validity note and the reasoning on this page are this library's own writing: quote them with attribution, and please do not present either as the words of the court — this page keeps the two apart and so should a quotation of it.
Every entry in this library links to where it was found, so you can check it yourself rather than take our word for it.
The department has issued a Black Money Act notice for a foreign bank account opened in 2007. The Act only came into force in 2015. On what does the charge on that asset actually rest, and in which year is it charged?
The officer issued several s.10 notices over two years and assessed one of the years. Does it matter which year the notice falls in?
What are the time limits, forms and fees for an appeal under the Black Money Act, and where do they differ from the Income-tax Act?
The department cannot produce the s.10(1) notice for the year it assessed. Is that cured by s.81?
