The officer has provisionally attached my property in a Black Money Act proceeding. Where does that power come from, and is s.3(2) under challenge?
The attachment was made under s.84 of the Black Money Act, which applies s.281B of the Income-tax Act to that Act. The Delhi High Court issued notice on a petition seeking to set aside proceedings under s.10 for assessment year 2021-22 and challenging the constitutional validity of s.3(2), gave the petitioner until 8 April 2025 to respond to the show cause notice, directed the officer to hear her and pass an order by 15 May 2025, and directed that any adverse order would not be given effect until the next hearing. Nothing was decided.
Decided by the High Court (Vibhu Bakhru J and Tejas Karia J) on 2025-03-21, reported as W.P.(C) 3391/2025. It bears on section BMA s.84, section BMA s.10, section BMA s.3(2), section 281B of the Income Tax Act 1961, in Assessment & Scrutiny and Demand, Recovery & Stay matters.
It records two things worth knowing: that provisional attachment in a Black Money Act proceeding travels through s.84, and that the constitutional validity of s.3(2) is live before the Delhi High Court, with related challenges before a coordinate bench and some of them stayed.
Binding within that High Court's jurisdiction. Persuasive elsewhere.
Read aloud by your device. Press again to stop.
Proceedings under s.10 of the Black Money Act for assessment year 2021-22 were initiated by a notice dated 31 May 2021. The petitioner objected, contending she had no beneficial interest in the overseas assets, and no immediate action followed. On 13 June 2023 the officer passed an attachment order under s.84 of the Black Money Act provisionally attaching her immovable assets. Summons were issued, an explanation was given, and a show cause notice dated 5 March 2025 followed. The petition sought to set aside the proceedings and challenged the constitutional validity of s.3(2), seeking in the alternative that it be read down. Related constitutional challenges were pending before a coordinate bench, some of them stayed.
Notice was issued and interim directions given. The petitioner was permitted to file an additional reply and documents by 8 April 2025, after which the officer was to afford her an opportunity of being heard and pass an appropriate order by 15 May 2025, any order adverse to her not to be given effect until the next date of hearing (para 12). The matter was listed for 13 August 2025 (para 13). Nothing was decided on the validity of s.3(2) or on the attachment.
The Revenue's counsel stated that the officer had no objection to the petitioner being given fifteen days for additional information and documents, with an opportunity of hearing and an order within thirty days after that (para 10). The Court accepted that arrangement because the limitation period was expiring (para 11), and protected the petitioner by suspending the effect of any adverse order rather than by restraining the officer from passing one.
The said order, if adverse to the petitioner will not be given effect till the next date of hearing.
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 WhatsAppThe attachment was made under s.84 of the Black Money Act, which applies s.281B of the Income-tax Act to that Act. The Delhi High Court issued notice on a petition seeking to set aside proceedings under s.10 for assessment year 2021-22 and challenging the constitutional validity of s.3(2), gave the petitioner until 8 April 2025 to respond to the show cause notice, directed the officer to hear her and pass an order by 15 May 2025, and directed that any adverse order would not be given effect until the next hearing. Nothing was decided. This was decided by the High Court (Vibhu Bakhru J and Tejas Karia J) and bears on section BMA s.84, section BMA s.10, section BMA s.3(2), section 281B of the Income Tax Act 1961. It is reported as W.P.(C) 3391/2025. It records two things worth knowing: that provisional attachment in a Black Money Act proceeding travels through s.84, and that the constitutional validity of s.3(2) is live before the Delhi High Court, with related challenges before a coordinate bench and some of them stayed. If it applies to you, the first step is this: Trace any provisional attachment in a Black Money Act proceeding to s.84 read with s.281B of the Income-tax Act, and test it against the conditions in s.281B.
Proceedings under s.10 of the Black Money Act for assessment year 2021-22 were initiated by a notice dated 31 May 2021. The petitioner objected, contending she had no beneficial interest in the overseas assets, and no immediate action followed. On 13 June 2023 the officer passed an attachment order under s.84 of the Black Money Act provisionally attaching her immovable assets. Summons were issued, an explanation was given, and a show cause notice dated 5 March 2025 followed. The petition sought to set aside the proceedings and challenged the constitutional validity of s.3(2), seeking in the alternative that it be read down. Related constitutional challenges were pending before a coordinate bench, some of them stayed. The matter was decided on 2025-03-21 by the High Court (Vibhu Bakhru J and Tejas Karia J). On those facts the High Court held as follows. Notice was issued and interim directions given. The petitioner was permitted to file an additional reply and documents by 8 April 2025, after which the officer was to afford her an opportunity of being heard and pass an appropriate order by 15 May 2025, any order adverse to her not to be given effect until the next date of hearing (para 12). The matter was listed for 13 August 2025 (para 13). Nothing was decided on the validity of s.3(2) or on the attachment.
The Revenue's counsel stated that the officer had no objection to the petitioner being given fifteen days for additional information and documents, with an opportunity of hearing and an order within thirty days after that (para 10). The Court accepted that arrangement because the limitation period was expiring (para 11), and protected the petitioner by suspending the effect of any adverse order rather than by restraining the officer from passing one. In the words reproduced by the source cited on this page: "The said order, if adverse to the petitioner will not be given effect till the next date of hearing."
It was decided by the High Court on 2025-03-21 and is reported as W.P.(C) 3391/2025. 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.84, section BMA s.10, section BMA s.3(2), section 281B, 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 cuts both ways and is cited by both sides. Notice was issued and interim directions given. The petitioner was permitted to file an additional reply and documents by 8 April 2025, after which the officer was to afford her an opportunity of being heard and pass an appropriate order by 15 May 2025, any order adverse to her not to be given effect until the next date of hearing (para 12). The matter was listed for 13 August 2025 (para 13). Nothing was decided on the validity of s.3(2) or on the attachment. It arises in Assessment & Scrutiny and Demand, Recovery & Stay matters, on section BMA s.84, section BMA s.10, section BMA s.3(2), section 281B of the Income Tax Act 1961, and was decided by Vibhu Bakhru J and Tejas Karia 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. Where limitation under s.11 is about to expire, expect the Court to let the officer pass the order and to protect you by suspending its effect rather than by restraining him. Ask for the standard protection sought here: time to reply, a hearing, an order by a fixed date, and a direction that an adverse order is not given effect until the next hearing. Before arguing the validity of s.3(2), check the position of the challenges pending before the Delhi High Court.
Searched for later treatment; none was found. That is not the same as a source affirming it. An interim order of 21 March 2025. What happened on 13 August 2025 or since was not traced, and the constitutional challenge to s.3(2) appears still to be pending. Nothing was decided, so the order cannot be cited as authority for anything beyond the directions it made. 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.
Section 281B of the Income-tax Act is not mentioned in the order; the attachment is described only as having been made under s.84 of the Black Money Act. Section 281B is tagged here because it is the only provisional attachment provision in the list of Income-tax Act sections that s.84 applies, as that list reads on the page of s.84 that was read. The order does not identify the overseas assets, the amount attached or the properties attached. 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.
Notice was issued and interim directions given. The petitioner was permitted to file an additional reply and documents by 8 April 2025, after which the officer was to afford her an opportunity of being heard and pass an appropriate order by 15 May 2025, any order adverse to her not to be given effect until the next date of hearing (para 12). The matter was listed for 13 August 2025 (para 13). Nothing was decided on the validity of s.3(2) or on the attachment.
TaxSphere, “Jyotsna Suri v DDIT (Inv.)”, https://taxnotice.vittsphere.com/caselaw/case/jyotsna-suri-v-ddit-bma-84-provisional-attachment/ (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?
Which provisions of the Income-tax Act apply to the Black Money Act, and can the officer borrow one that is not on the list?
The officer has charged interest under s.40 of the Black Money Act on top of the tax. Is there any machinery for it, and can I still fight the quantum in the appeal against the rectification order?
Days after the search they passed an order stopping me from leaving India without a tax clearance certificate. Can they do that, and does it even apply to a Black Money Act case?
