My Black Money Act assessment was passed more than two years after the s.10 notice. The Department says the covid relaxation law extended the time. Did it?
Not for the Black Money Act. Section 11(1) gives two years from the end of the financial year in which the s.10(1) notice was issued, and the Delhi Bench quashed an assessment passed outside that period. Notification No. 113/2021 dated 17 September 2021 issued under the Taxation and Other Laws (Relaxation and Amendment of Certain Provisions) Act 2020 extended time only for the Income-tax Act and the Prohibition of Benami Property Transactions Act, not for every specified Act, and did not extend the time for completing an assessment under the Black Money Act.
Decided by the ITAT (Ramit Kochar, Accountant Member and Sudhir Kumar, Judicial Member) on 2026-06-05, reported as BMA No. 7/Del/2025. It bears on section BMA s.11, section BMA s.11(1), section BMA s.10(1), section BMA s.10(3), section BMA s.3 of the Income Tax Act 1961, in Assessment & Scrutiny, Appeals and How Tax Law Is Read matters.
A clean, jurisdictional ground against a large class of Black Money Act assessments passed in the covid window, where the Department routinely relies on the relaxation Act. It also disposes of the other standing argument, that the Explanation to s.11 excludes the time taken over an exchange-of-information reference, by fixing when that exclusion can operate at all.
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 was the proprietor of M/s Jade Knits and, with Brijesh Kumar Agarwal and Harish Kumar, a director of Woodstock Universal Ltd, a British Virgin Islands company incorporated on 10 April 2007 and struck off on 1 November 2014. The undisclosed foreign income alleged consisted of two payments, US$ 11,020 on 28 May 2008 and US$ 25,000 on 31 July 2008, aggregating Rs 15,66,870. Notice under s.10(1) of the Black Money Act was issued on 10 April 2018 and the assessment order under s.10(3) making that addition was passed on 17 February 2022. The Commissioner (Appeals)-3, Gurgaon upheld it by order dated 30 January 2025. Before the Tribunal the assessee took the limitation ground, pleading also that the proceedings had been initiated after inordinate delay following receipt of information on an FT and TR reference.
The appeal was allowed and the assessment quashed as time-barred (paras 10 to 12). The notice under s.10(1) having been issued on 10 April 2018, which falls in financial year 2018-19, the assessment had to be made by 31 March 2021; the order passed on 17 February 2022 was beyond that and the assessment proceedings were quashed (para 10). The other grounds were left open as academic (para 11).
The Departmental Representative accepted the two-year period but relied on the Taxation and Other Laws (Relaxation and Amendment of Certain Provisions) Act 2020 and on Notification No. 113/2021 dated 17 September 2021 as extending the time to 31 March 2022 (para 8). The Tribunal read the notification and found that it extended the time limit for completion of any action only for the Income-tax Act and the Prohibition of Benami Property Transactions Act 1988, and not for all the specified Acts as defined in s.2(b) of that relaxation Act, so the time limit for completing an assessment under the Black Money Act was not extended by it (para 9). It then applied s.11(1) on its own terms (para 10). On the Explanation to s.11, which excludes time in certain cases, the Tribunal recorded that it could not assist because both the FT and TR references had been made and received well before the initiation of proceedings under s.10(1).
The time limit for completion the assessment under Black Money Act was not extended by this notification.
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 WhatsAppNot for the Black Money Act. Section 11(1) gives two years from the end of the financial year in which the s.10(1) notice was issued, and the Delhi Bench quashed an assessment passed outside that period. Notification No. 113/2021 dated 17 September 2021 issued under the Taxation and Other Laws (Relaxation and Amendment of Certain Provisions) Act 2020 extended time only for the Income-tax Act and the Prohibition of Benami Property Transactions Act, not for every specified Act, and did not extend the time for completing an assessment under the Black Money Act. This was decided by the ITAT (Ramit Kochar, Accountant Member and Sudhir Kumar, Judicial Member) and bears on section BMA s.11, section BMA s.11(1), section BMA s.10(1), section BMA s.10(3), section BMA s.3 of the Income Tax Act 1961. It is reported as BMA No. 7/Del/2025. A clean, jurisdictional ground against a large class of Black Money Act assessments passed in the covid window, where the Department routinely relies on the relaxation Act. It also disposes of the other standing argument, that the Explanation to s.11 excludes the time taken over an exchange-of-information reference, by fixing when that exclusion can operate at all. If it applies to you, the first step is this: Take the date of the s.10(1) notice, add two years to the end of that financial year, and compare it with the date of the assessment order before arguing anything on merits.
The assessee was the proprietor of M/s Jade Knits and, with Brijesh Kumar Agarwal and Harish Kumar, a director of Woodstock Universal Ltd, a British Virgin Islands company incorporated on 10 April 2007 and struck off on 1 November 2014. The undisclosed foreign income alleged consisted of two payments, US$ 11,020 on 28 May 2008 and US$ 25,000 on 31 July 2008, aggregating Rs 15,66,870. Notice under s.10(1) of the Black Money Act was issued on 10 April 2018 and the assessment order under s.10(3) making that addition was passed on 17 February 2022. The Commissioner (Appeals)-3, Gurgaon upheld it by order dated 30 January 2025. Before the Tribunal the assessee took the limitation ground, pleading also that the proceedings had been initiated after inordinate delay following receipt of information on an FT and TR reference. The matter was decided on 2026-06-05 by the ITAT (Ramit Kochar, Accountant Member and Sudhir Kumar, Judicial Member). On those facts the ITAT held as follows. The appeal was allowed and the assessment quashed as time-barred (paras 10 to 12). The notice under s.10(1) having been issued on 10 April 2018, which falls in financial year 2018-19, the assessment had to be made by 31 March 2021; the order passed on 17 February 2022 was beyond that and the assessment proceedings were quashed (para 10). The other grounds were left open as academic (para 11).
The Departmental Representative accepted the two-year period but relied on the Taxation and Other Laws (Relaxation and Amendment of Certain Provisions) Act 2020 and on Notification No. 113/2021 dated 17 September 2021 as extending the time to 31 March 2022 (para 8). The Tribunal read the notification and found that it extended the time limit for completion of any action only for the Income-tax Act and the Prohibition of Benami Property Transactions Act 1988, and not for all the specified Acts as defined in s.2(b) of that relaxation Act, so the time limit for completing an assessment under the Black Money Act was not extended by it (para 9). It then applied s.11(1) on its own terms (para 10). On the Explanation to s.11, which excludes time in certain cases, the Tribunal recorded that it could not assist because both the FT and TR references had been made and received well before the initiation of proceedings under s.10(1). In the words reproduced by the source cited on this page: "The time limit for completion the assessment under Black Money Act was not extended by this notification."
It was decided by the ITAT on 2026-06-05 and is reported as BMA No. 7/Del/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.11, section BMA s.11(1), section BMA s.10(1), section BMA s.10(3), section BMA s.3, 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 appeal was allowed and the assessment quashed as time-barred (paras 10 to 12). The notice under s.10(1) having been issued on 10 April 2018, which falls in financial year 2018-19, the assessment had to be made by 31 March 2021; the order passed on 17 February 2022 was beyond that and the assessment proceedings were quashed (para 10). The other grounds were left open as academic (para 11). It arises in Assessment & Scrutiny, Appeals and How Tax Law Is Read matters, on section BMA s.11, section BMA s.11(1), section BMA s.10(1), section BMA s.10(3), section BMA s.3 of the Income Tax Act 1961, and was decided by Ramit Kochar, Accountant Member and Sudhir Kumar, 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. If the Department invokes the relaxation Act of 2020, ask which notification, and read the notification against the Acts it actually names. Where the Explanation to s.11 is invoked for a reference to a foreign tax authority, check the dates the reference was made and received; if both fall before the s.10(1) notice there is nothing to exclude. Take the limitation ground first and ask that the remaining grounds be kept open, which is the order made here.
Searched for later treatment; none was found. That is not the same as a source affirming it. Decided 5 June 2026. A search for decisions on s.11 of the Black Money Act returned this order, Pachamuthu Kumar (Chennai Bench, 30 April 2025) and the Sunil Kumar Alagh orders (Mumbai Bench, 25 March 2026), and nothing applying, doubting or overruling it. No High Court decision on whether the relaxation Act of 2020 reaches the Black Money Act was located. 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 order's own chronology chart is at para 5 and the notice date of 10 April 2018 is taken from it. No reporter citation is printed on the page read. The Tribunal's reading of Notification No. 113/2021 was not tested against the text of the notification itself in preparing this note; the notification should be read before the point is argued. 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 appeal was allowed and the assessment quashed as time-barred (paras 10 to 12). The notice under s.10(1) having been issued on 10 April 2018, which falls in financial year 2018-19, the assessment had to be made by 31 March 2021; the order passed on 17 February 2022 was beyond that and the assessment proceedings were quashed (para 10). The other grounds were left open as academic (para 11).
TaxSphere, “Bindu Todi v DDIT”, https://taxnotice.vittsphere.com/caselaw/case/bindu-todi-v-ddit-bma-11-tola-did-not-extend-limitation/ (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.
I have an assessment order under s.10(3) of the Black Money Act. The department says the limitation was extended because a request for exchange of information was pending. How long is the period, and how much can that request add to it?
The officer issued a fresh s.10 notice two years after the first one and then assessed. Does the clock run from the second notice?
The officer excluded the whole period he spent chasing a foreign tax authority. Does the exclusion start before the s.10(1) notice was served?
I am named as one of several beneficiaries of an offshore discretionary trust my uncle settled. Does that make the trust's assets my undisclosed foreign assets?
