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?
It is decisive. Where the asset was acquired before the Act commenced and no declaration was made under s.59, s.72(c) deems it to have been acquired in the year in which the s.10 notice is issued, so the assessment can only be for the assessment year that follows that year. A notice issued in April 2018 could therefore support an assessment only for assessment year 2019-20, and the Mumbai Bench quashed assessments made for assessment year 2018-19. A defective first notice could not be saved by a corrigendum or by s.81.
Decided by the ITAT (B.R. Baskaran, Accountant Member and Sunil Kumar Singh, Judicial Member) on 2025-02-14, reported as BMA Nos. 2 & 3/Mum/2022. It bears on section BMA s.72(c), section BMA s.10(1), section BMA s.81, section BMA s.59, section BMA s.71(d)(iii), section 292B of the Income Tax Act 1961, in Assessment & Scrutiny, Appeals and How Tax Law Is Read matters.
Section 72(c) is usually invoked by the Department to reach old assets. This decision turns it round: the same deeming that brings the asset in also fixes the year, and the Department cannot pick a different one. Where several notices have issued, the arithmetic decides the case without touching the merits.
Binding on the AO and CIT(A) within the Tribunal's jurisdiction. Persuasive elsewhere.
Read aloud by your device. Press again to stop.
The assets were an interest in the Vanaka Trust, based in Guernsey, valued at US$ 95,14,676 as on 31 March 2016, and retained profit of US$ 2,20,274 in Vanaka Group Limited, a British Virgin Islands company, as on 31 March 2017, aggregating US$ 97,35,050. Both were acquired before the Black Money Act commenced and no declaration under s.59 had been filed. A first notice under s.10(1) dated 7 August 2017 recited that information had come to the officer's notice during previous year 2016-17 relevant to assessment year 2017-18; no assessment followed for that year and the Commissioner (Appeals) treated it as effectively withdrawn and infructuous. A corrigendum of 31 July 2018 sought to correct it. Further notices issued on 27 April 2018 and 10 July 2018 for assessment year 2018-19 and on 9 November 2018 without naming any year. The assessment orders were passed for assessment year 2018-19 in the hands of both assessees.
Both appeals were allowed and the orders of the tax authorities quashed (paras 12 to 14). The Assessing Officer did not acquire jurisdiction in accordance with law to assess the undisclosed assets and income in assessment year 2018-19 because no valid notice was issued for that year (para 12). In the absence of a valid notice for the assessment year in question the orders had to be quashed (para 13).
The first notice initiated proceedings only for assessment year 2017-18 and was effectively withdrawn, and the corrigendum could not validate a withdrawn notice; the protection of s.81 of the Black Money Act, which answers to s.292B of the Income-tax Act, does not extend to substantive issues or fundamental flaws in the proceedings (para 9). The second notice clearly related to assessment year 2018-19, but s.72(c) deems a pre-commencement asset in respect of which no s.59 declaration was made to have been acquired in the year in which the s.10 notice is issued; that notice having issued in April 2018, the assets are deemed acquired in previous year 2018-19 and assessable only in assessment year 2019-20 (para 10.1). The later notices of 10 July 2018 and 9 November 2018 fell in the same previous year and could support only assessment year 2019-20 (para 11). Since the assessment was for assessment year 2018-19, jurisdiction was absent (para 12).
The assessing officer did not acquire jurisdiction in accordance with law for assessing the undisclosed assets and income in Assessment year 2018-19 by issuing a valid notice.
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 WhatsAppIt is decisive. Where the asset was acquired before the Act commenced and no declaration was made under s.59, s.72(c) deems it to have been acquired in the year in which the s.10 notice is issued, so the assessment can only be for the assessment year that follows that year. A notice issued in April 2018 could therefore support an assessment only for assessment year 2019-20, and the Mumbai Bench quashed assessments made for assessment year 2018-19. A defective first notice could not be saved by a corrigendum or by s.81. This was decided by the ITAT (B.R. Baskaran, Accountant Member and Sunil Kumar Singh, Judicial Member) and bears on section BMA s.72(c), section BMA s.10(1), section BMA s.81, section BMA s.59, section BMA s.71(d)(iii), section 292B of the Income Tax Act 1961. It is reported as BMA Nos. 2 & 3/Mum/2022. Section 72(c) is usually invoked by the Department to reach old assets. This decision turns it round: the same deeming that brings the asset in also fixes the year, and the Department cannot pick a different one. Where several notices have issued, the arithmetic decides the case without touching the merits. If it applies to you, the first step is this: List every s.10(1) notice with its date and the year it names, and identify which one the assessment claims to rest on.
The assets were an interest in the Vanaka Trust, based in Guernsey, valued at US$ 95,14,676 as on 31 March 2016, and retained profit of US$ 2,20,274 in Vanaka Group Limited, a British Virgin Islands company, as on 31 March 2017, aggregating US$ 97,35,050. Both were acquired before the Black Money Act commenced and no declaration under s.59 had been filed. A first notice under s.10(1) dated 7 August 2017 recited that information had come to the officer's notice during previous year 2016-17 relevant to assessment year 2017-18; no assessment followed for that year and the Commissioner (Appeals) treated it as effectively withdrawn and infructuous. A corrigendum of 31 July 2018 sought to correct it. Further notices issued on 27 April 2018 and 10 July 2018 for assessment year 2018-19 and on 9 November 2018 without naming any year. The assessment orders were passed for assessment year 2018-19 in the hands of both assessees. The matter was decided on 2025-02-14 by the ITAT (B.R. Baskaran, Accountant Member and Sunil Kumar Singh, Judicial Member). On those facts the ITAT held as follows. Both appeals were allowed and the orders of the tax authorities quashed (paras 12 to 14). The Assessing Officer did not acquire jurisdiction in accordance with law to assess the undisclosed assets and income in assessment year 2018-19 because no valid notice was issued for that year (para 12). In the absence of a valid notice for the assessment year in question the orders had to be quashed (para 13).
The first notice initiated proceedings only for assessment year 2017-18 and was effectively withdrawn, and the corrigendum could not validate a withdrawn notice; the protection of s.81 of the Black Money Act, which answers to s.292B of the Income-tax Act, does not extend to substantive issues or fundamental flaws in the proceedings (para 9). The second notice clearly related to assessment year 2018-19, but s.72(c) deems a pre-commencement asset in respect of which no s.59 declaration was made to have been acquired in the year in which the s.10 notice is issued; that notice having issued in April 2018, the assets are deemed acquired in previous year 2018-19 and assessable only in assessment year 2019-20 (para 10.1). The later notices of 10 July 2018 and 9 November 2018 fell in the same previous year and could support only assessment year 2019-20 (para 11). Since the assessment was for assessment year 2018-19, jurisdiction was absent (para 12). In the words reproduced by the source cited on this page: "The assessing officer did not acquire jurisdiction in accordance with law for assessing the undisclosed assets and income in Assessment year 2018-19 by issuing a valid notice." The decision followed or applied CIT v. Norton Motors - relied on for the limits of the curative provision; Infineon Technologies AG v. DCIT - relied on to the same effect.
It was decided by the ITAT on 2025-02-14 and is reported as BMA Nos. 2 & 3/Mum/2022. 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.72(c), section BMA s.10(1), section BMA s.81, section BMA s.59, section BMA s.71(d)(iii), section 292B, 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. Both appeals were allowed and the orders of the tax authorities quashed (paras 12 to 14). The Assessing Officer did not acquire jurisdiction in accordance with law to assess the undisclosed assets and income in assessment year 2018-19 because no valid notice was issued for that year (para 12). In the absence of a valid notice for the assessment year in question the orders had to be quashed (para 13). It arises in Assessment & Scrutiny, Appeals and How Tax Law Is Read matters, on section BMA s.72(c), section BMA s.10(1), section BMA s.81, section BMA s.59, section BMA s.71(d)(iii), section 292B of the Income Tax Act 1961, and was decided by B.R. Baskaran, Accountant Member and Sunil Kumar Singh, 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. For a pre-commencement asset with no s.59 declaration, apply s.72(c): the previous year is the year the notice is issued, and the assessment year is the one following. If the assessment is for any other year, take the point as an absence of jurisdiction rather than an irregularity. Resist any corrigendum said to correct a withdrawn or infructuous notice; s.81 does not extend to a fundamental flaw in the proceeding.
Searched for later treatment; none was found. That is not the same as a source affirming it. Decided 14 February 2025. Nothing applying, doubting or overruling it was located. The Kolkata Bench reached the same conclusion on s.81 and on the year fixed by the notice in Ajay Kumar Patel on 20 January 2026 without citing it, and the Delhi Bench did the same in Shantanu Bhowmick. No High Court decision on the point was found. 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.
Paragraph 10.1 as it reads on the page says 'Since the second notice is issued on 27-04-2019', while the facts elsewhere in the same order give the second notice as 27 April 2018. The reasoning only works on the 2018 date, which is also the date the Commissioner (Appeals) treated as operative, and the 2019 reference appears to be a slip. The order mentions s.71(d)(iii) only in the course of quoting a CBDT circular on who may declare under s.59, and decides nothing about s.71. No reporter citation is printed on the page read; the full names and citations of Norton Motors and Infineon Technologies are not printed either and those decisions were not opened. 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.
Both appeals were allowed and the orders of the tax authorities quashed (paras 12 to 14). The Assessing Officer did not acquire jurisdiction in accordance with law to assess the undisclosed assets and income in assessment year 2018-19 because no valid notice was issued for that year (para 12). In the absence of a valid notice for the assessment year in question the orders had to be quashed (para 13).
TaxSphere, “Anandi Kaushik Laijawala v DDIT (Inv.)”, https://taxnotice.vittsphere.com/caselaw/case/anandi-laijawala-v-ddit-bma-72c-year-fixed-by-the-notice/ (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 got my foreign account details under an exchange-of-information agreement, so s.71(d)(iii) shut me out of the s.59 declaration window. Does Gautam Khaitan still answer me?
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?
The department cannot produce the s.10(1) notice for the year it assessed. Is that cured by s.81?
My foreign company was struck off and the bank account closed years before the Black Money Act commenced. Can they still prosecute me for it?
