Can I take an assessment under the Black Money Act straight to the High Court?
Not ordinarily. The Kerala High Court dismissed two writ petitions against proceedings under the Black Money Act because the assessment order was appealable under s.15 of that Act and the petitioner had come to the Court directly without invoking the statutory remedy. The dismissal was without prejudice to the right to appeal, and the Court excluded the period from 24 March 2023 until receipt of the certified copy of the judgment in computing limitation for that appeal.
Decided by the High Court (Ziyad Rahman A.A. J) on 2025-10-08, reported as W.P.(C) Nos. 14509 of 2023 and 10667 of 2023 (Kerala High Court). It bears on section BMA s.15, section BMA s.10, section BMA s.13, section BMA s.41, section BMA s.42 of the Income Tax Act 1961, in Appeals and Assessment & Scrutiny matters.
Writ petitions against Black Money Act assessments are common because the exposure is large and the appeal machinery is unfamiliar. This confirms that s.15 supplies a remedy the Court expects to be used first, and shows the form of the exclusion order to ask for if the writ has already been filed and time has run.
Binding within that High Court's jurisdiction. Persuasive elsewhere.
Read aloud by your device. Press again to stop.
Two writ petitions concerned proceedings taken against the petitioner under the Black Money Act. W.P.(C) No. 10667 of 2023 challenged the notice by which the proceedings were initiated. W.P.(C) No. 14509 of 2023, filed later, challenged the final assessment order, Ext.P6, passed while the first petition was pending. Neither petition had been admitted and both had been pending since 2023 (para 2).
Both writ petitions were dismissed. The Court held that the order impugned in W.P.(C) No. 14509 of 2023 was appealable under s.15 of the Black Money Act and that the petitioner had approached the Court directly without invoking the statutory remedies, and found no justifiable ground for intervention under Article 226. The petitions were dismissed without prejudice to the petitioner's right to invoke the statutory remedies, and the Court directed that the period from 24 March 2023 until receipt of the certified copy of the judgment be excluded in computing the period of limitation for an appeal against Ext.P6.
The Court's reasoning is short. The existence of an appeal under s.15 against an order of the kind impugned, coupled with the petitioner having bypassed it and the petitions having remained unadmitted for over two years, was held to leave no ground for the exercise of writ jurisdiction. The exclusion of time was given so that the dismissal would not itself defeat the statutory remedy the Court was relegating the petitioner to (para 2).
these writ petitions are dismissed without prejudice to the right of the petitioner to invoke the statutory remedies
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 ordinarily. The Kerala High Court dismissed two writ petitions against proceedings under the Black Money Act because the assessment order was appealable under s.15 of that Act and the petitioner had come to the Court directly without invoking the statutory remedy. The dismissal was without prejudice to the right to appeal, and the Court excluded the period from 24 March 2023 until receipt of the certified copy of the judgment in computing limitation for that appeal. This was decided by the High Court (Ziyad Rahman A.A. J) and bears on section BMA s.15, section BMA s.10, section BMA s.13, section BMA s.41, section BMA s.42 of the Income Tax Act 1961. It is reported as W.P.(C) Nos. 14509 of 2023 and 10667 of 2023 (Kerala High Court). Writ petitions against Black Money Act assessments are common because the exposure is large and the appeal machinery is unfamiliar. This confirms that s.15 supplies a remedy the Court expects to be used first, and shows the form of the exclusion order to ask for if the writ has already been filed and time has run. If it applies to you, the first step is this: File the appeal under s.15 within the statutory period even while a writ is pending; do not rely on the writ to preserve time.
Two writ petitions concerned proceedings taken against the petitioner under the Black Money Act. W.P.(C) No. 10667 of 2023 challenged the notice by which the proceedings were initiated. W.P.(C) No. 14509 of 2023, filed later, challenged the final assessment order, Ext.P6, passed while the first petition was pending. Neither petition had been admitted and both had been pending since 2023 (para 2). The matter was decided on 2025-10-08 by the High Court (Ziyad Rahman A.A. J). On those facts the High Court held as follows. Both writ petitions were dismissed. The Court held that the order impugned in W.P.(C) No. 14509 of 2023 was appealable under s.15 of the Black Money Act and that the petitioner had approached the Court directly without invoking the statutory remedies, and found no justifiable ground for intervention under Article 226. The petitions were dismissed without prejudice to the petitioner's right to invoke the statutory remedies, and the Court directed that the period from 24 March 2023 until receipt of the certified copy of the judgment be excluded in computing the period of limitation for an appeal against Ext.P6.
The Court's reasoning is short. The existence of an appeal under s.15 against an order of the kind impugned, coupled with the petitioner having bypassed it and the petitions having remained unadmitted for over two years, was held to leave no ground for the exercise of writ jurisdiction. The exclusion of time was given so that the dismissal would not itself defeat the statutory remedy the Court was relegating the petitioner to (para 2). In the words reproduced by the source cited on this page: "these writ petitions are dismissed without prejudice to the right of the petitioner to invoke the statutory remedies"
It was decided by the High Court on 2025-10-08 and is reported as W.P.(C) Nos. 14509 of 2023 and 10667 of 2023 (Kerala High Court). Binding within that High Court's jurisdiction. Persuasive elsewhere. A High Court decision binds the assessing officer, the Commissioner (Appeals) and the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal within that state, and is persuasive elsewhere. If your assessment is in a different jurisdiction, check whether your own High Court has taken the same view before relying on it. On section BMA s.15, section BMA s.10, section BMA s.13, section BMA s.41, section BMA s.42, 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 department, and it appears in this library for that reason — you need to know what the Assessing Officer will cite against you. Both writ petitions were dismissed. The Court held that the order impugned in W.P.(C) No. 14509 of 2023 was appealable under s.15 of the Black Money Act and that the petitioner had approached the Court directly without invoking the statutory remedies, and found no justifiable ground for intervention under Article 226. The petitions were dismissed without prejudice to the petitioner's right to invoke the statutory remedies, and the Court directed that the period from 24 March 2023 until receipt of the certified copy of the judgment be excluded in computing the period of limitation for an appeal against Ext.P6. It arises in Appeals and Assessment & Scrutiny matters, on section BMA s.15, section BMA s.10, section BMA s.13, section BMA s.41, section BMA s.42 of the Income Tax Act 1961, and was decided by Ziyad Rahman A.A. J. 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 a writ has been filed and time has run, ask in terms for exclusion of the period the writ was pending when the Court declines to entertain it. Reserve the writ for a jurisdictional defect that the appellate authority cannot cure, and plead why the alternate remedy is not efficacious. Take a certified copy of the judgment promptly; the exclusion here ran only until its receipt.
Searched for later treatment; none was found. That is not the same as a source affirming it. No later decision applying or doubting this judgment was located, and no appeal against it was found. It is a short judgment declining to entertain a writ and is authority on the availability of the s.15 remedy, not on the merits of any Black Money Act question. 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 judgment is brief and its numbered paragraphs run only to two. It does not describe the foreign asset, the amount assessed or the penalties, though ss.13, 41 and 42 appear among the provisions under which the impugned proceedings were taken. The exclusion of time runs from 24 March 2023, which appears to be the date of the assessment order or of the writ, but the judgment does not say which. 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 writ petitions were dismissed. The Court held that the order impugned in W.P.(C) No. 14509 of 2023 was appealable under s.15 of the Black Money Act and that the petitioner had approached the Court directly without invoking the statutory remedies, and found no justifiable ground for intervention under Article 226. The petitions were dismissed without prejudice to the petitioner's right to invoke the statutory remedies, and the Court directed that the period from 24 March 2023 until receipt of the certified copy of the judgment be excluded in computing the period of limitation for an appeal against Ext.P6.
TaxSphere, “Binoy Kodiyeri v DDIT”, https://taxnotice.vittsphere.com/caselaw/case/binoy-kodiyeri-v-ddit-bma-15-alternate-remedy/ (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.
Is the constitutional validity of the Black Money Act actually under challenge anywhere, and has anyone got a stay of an assessment under it?
My client's Black Money assessment covers a foreign account opened in 2009 and not declared under the one-time compliance window. The department has charged tax and a penalty of three times the tax, and says the year is fixed by s.72(c). What do those provisions actually say?
The assessment under the Black Money Act has been quashed. Does the s.41 penalty go with it, and does the s.43 penalty go too?
My Black Money Act appeal is pending and part of the demand is stayed. Can I stop the penalty proceedings until the appeal is decided?
