The Tribunal decided my Black Money Act appeal without dealing with the written submissions I filed. Is there any remedy short of the High Court?
Yes. Section 18(7) of the Black Money Act carries into that Act the same powers the Tribunal exercises under the Income-tax Act, and the Mumbai Bench used it to recall its own order of 2 November 2021 because the coordinate bench had not considered a detailed written submission filed two days before the hearing concluded. Non-consideration of a written submission filed on the record, with supporting evidence, is a mistake apparent from the record.
Decided by the ITAT (B.R. Baskaran, Accountant Member and Amit Shukla, Judicial Member) on 2025-02-28, reported as MA Nos. 97 & 98/Mum/2022, arising out of BMA Nos. 5 & 4/Mum/2021. It bears on section BMA s.18(7), section BMA s.18, section BMA s.10, section BMA s.2(11) of the Income Tax Act 1961, in Appeals and Evidence & Burden of Proof matters.
This is the only order located applying s.18(7). It establishes that the Tribunal's rectification jurisdiction under the Black Money Act is as wide as under s.254(2) of the Income-tax Act, and it shows the route for an assessee whose written submissions were passed over. It also means the much-cited Bhansali order of 2 November 2021 no longer stands on the point it was cited for.
Binding on the AO and CIT(A) within the Tribunal's jurisdiction. Persuasive elsewhere.
Read aloud by your device. Press again to stop.
Income from an offshore UBS Bank Singapore account No. 167573 held by M/s Gold Jewel Corporation was divided equally between Rashesh Manhar Bhansali and Ami Rashesh Bhansali and assessed in their hands for assessment year 2017-18. The item in dispute was a credit of US$ 32,13,307.60 on 22 February 2010. The Commissioner (Appeals) by order dated 5 July 2021 held the source of the deposit explained and deleted the addition. The Revenue appealed to the Tribunal in BMA Nos. 5 and 4/Mum/2021 and the Tribunal by order dated 2 November 2021 reversed that relief, recording at para 62 that the submissions were not based on copies of any sale or purchase documents but only on bland explanations. The assessees had in fact filed a detailed written submission on 26 October 2021, the hearing having concluded on 27 October 2021, explaining at paragraphs 11 to 22 that the credit represented the maturity of investments made earlier out of loans taken from UBS and placed in callable bonds and call deposits, and annexing bank statements and investment portfolio statements which the Revenue itself had supplied. Miscellaneous applications under s.18(7) followed.
Both miscellaneous applications were allowed (para 9). Non-consideration of the detailed written submissions furnished by the assessees along with the relevant evidence results in a mistake apparent from the record within s.18(7) (para 7). The orders dated 2 November 2021 in BMA Nos. 5/Mum/2021 and 4/Mum/2021 were recalled so far as they concerned the addition of US$ 32,13,307.60, and the Registry was directed to post both appeals before the regular bench for the limited purpose of disposing of the Revenue's appeals on that issue (para 8).
The Bench compared the dates: the written submissions were filed on 26 October 2021 and the hearing concluded on 27 October 2021, so the material was before the coordinate bench when it wrote that the explanation was unsupported by documents (para 5). It then found that the coordinate bench had not considered those submissions or the bank and portfolio statements filed with them, and had reversed the Commissioner (Appeals) without dealing with them (para 6). On the question whether that is a mistake apparent from the record, the Bench held that the two decisions of the jurisdictional High Court relied on by the assessees supported their plea (para 7). The Departmental Representative's contention that the order had been passed after appreciating the facts and disclosed no apparent mistake was not accepted (para 4).
non-consideration of the detailed written submissions furnished by the assessees along with relevant evidences would result in a mistake apparent from the record
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 WhatsAppYes. Section 18(7) of the Black Money Act carries into that Act the same powers the Tribunal exercises under the Income-tax Act, and the Mumbai Bench used it to recall its own order of 2 November 2021 because the coordinate bench had not considered a detailed written submission filed two days before the hearing concluded. Non-consideration of a written submission filed on the record, with supporting evidence, is a mistake apparent from the record. This was decided by the ITAT (B.R. Baskaran, Accountant Member and Amit Shukla, Judicial Member) and bears on section BMA s.18(7), section BMA s.18, section BMA s.10, section BMA s.2(11) of the Income Tax Act 1961. It is reported as MA Nos. 97 & 98/Mum/2022, arising out of BMA Nos. 5 & 4/Mum/2021. This is the only order located applying s.18(7). It establishes that the Tribunal's rectification jurisdiction under the Black Money Act is as wide as under s.254(2) of the Income-tax Act, and it shows the route for an assessee whose written submissions were passed over. It also means the much-cited Bhansali order of 2 November 2021 no longer stands on the point it was cited for. If it applies to you, the first step is this: File the written submission on the record before the hearing closes and keep the acknowledgement; the whole application turned on the date of filing being two days before the hearing concluded.
Income from an offshore UBS Bank Singapore account No. 167573 held by M/s Gold Jewel Corporation was divided equally between Rashesh Manhar Bhansali and Ami Rashesh Bhansali and assessed in their hands for assessment year 2017-18. The item in dispute was a credit of US$ 32,13,307.60 on 22 February 2010. The Commissioner (Appeals) by order dated 5 July 2021 held the source of the deposit explained and deleted the addition. The Revenue appealed to the Tribunal in BMA Nos. 5 and 4/Mum/2021 and the Tribunal by order dated 2 November 2021 reversed that relief, recording at para 62 that the submissions were not based on copies of any sale or purchase documents but only on bland explanations. The assessees had in fact filed a detailed written submission on 26 October 2021, the hearing having concluded on 27 October 2021, explaining at paragraphs 11 to 22 that the credit represented the maturity of investments made earlier out of loans taken from UBS and placed in callable bonds and call deposits, and annexing bank statements and investment portfolio statements which the Revenue itself had supplied. Miscellaneous applications under s.18(7) followed. The matter was decided on 2025-02-28 by the ITAT (B.R. Baskaran, Accountant Member and Amit Shukla, Judicial Member). On those facts the ITAT held as follows. Both miscellaneous applications were allowed (para 9). Non-consideration of the detailed written submissions furnished by the assessees along with the relevant evidence results in a mistake apparent from the record within s.18(7) (para 7). The orders dated 2 November 2021 in BMA Nos. 5/Mum/2021 and 4/Mum/2021 were recalled so far as they concerned the addition of US$ 32,13,307.60, and the Registry was directed to post both appeals before the regular bench for the limited purpose of disposing of the Revenue's appeals on that issue (para 8).
The Bench compared the dates: the written submissions were filed on 26 October 2021 and the hearing concluded on 27 October 2021, so the material was before the coordinate bench when it wrote that the explanation was unsupported by documents (para 5). It then found that the coordinate bench had not considered those submissions or the bank and portfolio statements filed with them, and had reversed the Commissioner (Appeals) without dealing with them (para 6). On the question whether that is a mistake apparent from the record, the Bench held that the two decisions of the jurisdictional High Court relied on by the assessees supported their plea (para 7). The Departmental Representative's contention that the order had been passed after appreciating the facts and disclosed no apparent mistake was not accepted (para 4). In the words reproduced by the source cited on this page: "non-consideration of the detailed written submissions furnished by the assessees along with relevant evidences would result in a mistake apparent from the record" The decision followed or applied Sony Pictures Networks India (P) Ltd v. ITAT (Bombay High Court) - relied on as supporting the plea that non-consideration of submissions is a mistake apparent from the record; Amore Jewels P Ltd v. DCIT (Bombay High Court) - relied on to the same effect.
It was decided by the ITAT on 2025-02-28 and is reported as MA Nos. 97 & 98/Mum/2022, arising out of BMA Nos. 5 & 4/Mum/2021. 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.18(7), section BMA s.18, section BMA s.10, section BMA s.2(11), 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 miscellaneous applications were allowed (para 9). Non-consideration of the detailed written submissions furnished by the assessees along with the relevant evidence results in a mistake apparent from the record within s.18(7) (para 7). The orders dated 2 November 2021 in BMA Nos. 5/Mum/2021 and 4/Mum/2021 were recalled so far as they concerned the addition of US$ 32,13,307.60, and the Registry was directed to post both appeals before the regular bench for the limited purpose of disposing of the Revenue's appeals on that issue (para 8). It arises in Appeals and Evidence & Burden of Proof matters, on section BMA s.18(7), section BMA s.18, section BMA s.10, section BMA s.2(11) of the Income Tax Act 1961, and was decided by B.R. Baskaran, Accountant Member and Amit Shukla, 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 order does not deal with it, move a miscellaneous application under s.18(7), identifying the paragraph of the Tribunal's order that shows the submission was not considered. Point to the paragraph where the Tribunal describes the explanation as 'bland' or unsupported, and set it against the documents that were actually on the file. Ask for a recall limited to the issue affected, which is what was granted here, rather than a recall of the whole order. Before relying on the Bhansali order of 2 November 2021 on the source of the US$ 32,13,307.60 credit, check that it has not been displaced by the rehearing this order directed.
Searched for later treatment; none was found. That is not the same as a source affirming it. Searches on indiankanoon for decisions on s.18 of the Black Money Act returned only this order and the text of the section, so nothing applying, doubting or overruling it was located. What the order does to the earlier decision matters more than what later decisions do to it: the Tribunal's order of 2 November 2021 in the Revenue's appeals stands recalled on the US$ 32,13,307.60 addition and was directed to be reheard. The result of that rehearing was not traced. 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 neutral citation of the recalled order is not printed on the page read. The order recalls only so much of the 2 November 2021 order as deals with the Revenue's appeals (BMA Nos. 4 and 5/Mum/2021) on the single addition of US$ 32,13,307.60; the assessees' own appeals decided on the same day, and the propositions on s.2(11), s.3(1) and s.72(c) for which that order is usually cited, are untouched by this order on its face. The library's entry rashesh-bhansali-v-addl-cit-black-money should carry that qualification. The full names of the two Bombay High Court decisions relied on at para 7 are given in the order only as Sony Pictures Networks India (P) Ltd and Amore Jewels P Ltd, with no citations printed; they were not separately 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 miscellaneous applications were allowed (para 9). Non-consideration of the detailed written submissions furnished by the assessees along with the relevant evidence results in a mistake apparent from the record within s.18(7) (para 7). The orders dated 2 November 2021 in BMA Nos. 5/Mum/2021 and 4/Mum/2021 were recalled so far as they concerned the addition of US$ 32,13,307.60, and the Registry was directed to post both appeals before the regular bench for the limited purpose of disposing of the Revenue's appeals on that issue (para 8).
TaxSphere, “Rashesh Manhar Bhansali v Addl. CIT (miscellaneous application)”, https://taxnotice.vittsphere.com/caselaw/case/rashesh-bhansali-v-addl-cit-bma-18-7-order-recalled/ (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.
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?
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?
I want to appeal a Black Money Act assessment to the Commissioner (Appeals). Is there a pre-deposit, and if so on what amount — the whole demand or only the part I am not disputing?
My name appears as beneficial owner on a foreign bank account opening form I never signed. Is that enough to tax the balance in my hands?
