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?
Section 84 applies a closed list: clauses (c) and (d) of s.90(1), clauses (c) and (d) of s.90A(1), ss.119, 133, 134, 135 and 138, the whole of Chapter XV, and ss.237, 240, 245, 280, 280A, 280B, 280D, 281, 281B and 284 of the Income-tax Act, with necessary modifications, as if they referred to undisclosed foreign income and asset instead of to income-tax. The list is expressed as an enumeration and the decided points located in this area turn on what is left out of it. Sections 234A, 234B and 234C are not on it, which is why the Chennai Bench in Pascal Postel held that the interest charge in s.40(2) has no advance-tax machinery to operate on; s.230 is not on it either, which is the omission on which Preetha Krishna (Madras High Court) is understood to turn, though no copy of that judgment was opened for this note.
Decided by the CBDT Circulars & Instructions (Not applicable — statutory text) on 2015-07-01, reported as Act No. 22 of 2015, section 84. It bears on section BMA s.84, section BMA s.40, section BMA s.11, section 90(1)(c), section 90(1)(d), section 90A(1)(c), section 90A(1)(d), section 119, section 133, section 134, section 135, section 138, section 237, section 240, section 245, section 280, section 280A, section 280B, section 280D, section 281, section 281B, section 284, section 230, section 234A, section 234B, section 234C of the Income Tax Act 1961, in How Tax Law Is Read, Demand, Recovery & Stay, Assessment & Scrutiny and Appeals matters.
Every time the Department reaches for a familiar Income-tax Act power in a Black Money Act proceeding - a travel restriction, an advance-tax interest computation, a survey, a settlement - the first question is whether the section is in the s.84 list. Where a taxpayer has succeeded in this area it has been on an omission from the list rather than on the merits, as in Pascal Postel on the advance-tax provisions.
Binding on the department, not on the assessee or the courts. An assessee may rely on a circular that is beneficial to them.
Read aloud by your device. Press again to stop.
Section 84 provides that the provisions of clauses (c) and (d) of sub-section (1) of section 90, clauses (c) and (d) of sub-section (1) of section 90A, sections 119, 133, 134, 135, 138, Chapter XV and sections 237, 240, 245, 280, 280A, 280B, 280D, 281, 281B and 284 of the Income-tax Act shall apply with necessary modifications as if the said provisions refer to undisclosed foreign income and asset instead of to income-tax. Section 230 of the Income-tax Act, which deals with tax clearance certificates and the restraint on departure from India, is not among them. Nor are sections 207 to 219 on advance tax or sections 234A, 234B and 234C on interest, although s.40 of the Black Money Act itself provides for interest in terms modelled on them.
The statutory position is as follows. Section 84 applies to the Black Money Act an enumerated list of Income-tax Act provisions and no others: clauses (c) and (d) of sub-section (1) of s.90, clauses (c) and (d) of sub-section (1) of s.90A, ss.119, 133, 134, 135 and 138, the whole of Chapter XV, and ss.237, 240, 245, 280, 280A, 280B, 280D, 281, 281B and 284. They apply 'with necessary modifications as if the said provisions refer to undisclosed foreign income and asset instead of to income-tax', so each listed provision is read as operating on undisclosed foreign income and assets rather than on income-tax. The operative effect is as much negative as positive: s.84 is the general bridge between the two Acts, and a provision of the Income-tax Act that is not in the enumeration is not carried across by it. Among the provisions that are on the list and are therefore available in a Black Money Act proceeding are s.133 for calling for information, Chapter XV for liability in special cases, s.281 for avoidance of transfers and s.281B for provisional attachment. Among those that are not are s.230 and the tax clearance certificate, the advance-tax provisions in ss.207 to 219 and the interest provisions in ss.234A to 234C, the search and survey provisions in ss.132 and 133A, and the appeal provisions in ss.246A to 260A - the Act carrying its own appeal machinery in ss.15 to 19 and its own interest charge in s.40.
Section 84 is drafted as an enumeration, not as a general application clause. It does not say that the Income-tax Act applies so far as may be, or that its machinery provisions apply; it lists sections, and two entries in the list - clauses (c) and (d) of s.90(1) and of s.90A(1) - are sub-clauses rather than whole sections, which shows the drafter selecting at a fine grain. A list drawn that carefully is most naturally read as exhaustive, and every practical argument in this area proceeds on that footing. No court located has held in terms that it is exhaustive, so the point is to be argued rather than assumed. What the selection shows is a division of labour. The Act keeps for itself everything that fixes liability and enforces it - charge, assessment, appeal, penalty, interest, recovery - and borrows from the Income-tax Act only where a provision is administrative or ancillary: instructions to the authorities, information-gathering, refunds, transfers made to defeat recovery, provisional attachment, service. The absence of the appeal provisions is explained by ss.15 to 19, and the absence of the advance-tax and interest provisions by s.40. The second of those is where the drafting has a gap rather than a design. Section 40 of the Black Money Act charges interest in terms modelled on the Income-tax Act's, and s.40(2) refers to ss.234B and 234C; but neither those sections nor the advance-tax scheme in ss.207 to 219 on which they operate is applied by s.84. The Chennai Bench in Pascal Postel (12 June 2026) held the charge unworkable for that reason, describing the reference in s.40(2) to ss.234B and 234C as 'nothing more than a charging peg with no machinery to hang it upon'. That decision turns on what is absent from s.84 without construing s.84 itself. The same structure runs the other way when the Department invokes a familiar power. Where an Income-tax Act provision is used in a Black Money Act proceeding, the first question is not whether the power was properly exercised but whether it exists in that proceeding at all. That is a question of jurisdiction and is taken before the merits, because if the section is not in the s.84 list there is nothing to answer on the merits.
shall apply with necessary modifications as if the said provisions refer to undisclosed foreign income and asset instead of to income-tax
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 WhatsAppSection 84 applies a closed list: clauses (c) and (d) of s.90(1), clauses (c) and (d) of s.90A(1), ss.119, 133, 134, 135 and 138, the whole of Chapter XV, and ss.237, 240, 245, 280, 280A, 280B, 280D, 281, 281B and 284 of the Income-tax Act, with necessary modifications, as if they referred to undisclosed foreign income and asset instead of to income-tax. The list is expressed as an enumeration and the decided points located in this area turn on what is left out of it. Sections 234A, 234B and 234C are not on it, which is why the Chennai Bench in Pascal Postel held that the interest charge in s.40(2) has no advance-tax machinery to operate on; s.230 is not on it either, which is the omission on which Preetha Krishna (Madras High Court) is understood to turn, though no copy of that judgment was opened for this note. This was decided by the CBDT Circulars & Instructions (Not applicable — statutory text) and bears on section BMA s.84, section BMA s.40, section BMA s.11, section 90(1)(c), section 90(1)(d), section 90A(1)(c), section 90A(1)(d), section 119, section 133, section 134, section 135, section 138, section 237, section 240, section 245, section 280, section 280A, section 280B, section 280D, section 281, section 281B, section 284, section 230, section 234A, section 234B, section 234C of the Income Tax Act 1961. It is reported as Act No. 22 of 2015, section 84. Every time the Department reaches for a familiar Income-tax Act power in a Black Money Act proceeding - a travel restriction, an advance-tax interest computation, a survey, a settlement - the first question is whether the section is in the s.84 list. Where a taxpayer has succeeded in this area it has been on an omission from the list rather than on the merits, as in Pascal Postel on the advance-tax provisions. If it applies to you, the first step is this: When the officer invokes an Income-tax Act provision, check it against the s.84 list before answering on the merits.
Section 84 provides that the provisions of clauses (c) and (d) of sub-section (1) of section 90, clauses (c) and (d) of sub-section (1) of section 90A, sections 119, 133, 134, 135, 138, Chapter XV and sections 237, 240, 245, 280, 280A, 280B, 280D, 281, 281B and 284 of the Income-tax Act shall apply with necessary modifications as if the said provisions refer to undisclosed foreign income and asset instead of to income-tax. Section 230 of the Income-tax Act, which deals with tax clearance certificates and the restraint on departure from India, is not among them. Nor are sections 207 to 219 on advance tax or sections 234A, 234B and 234C on interest, although s.40 of the Black Money Act itself provides for interest in terms modelled on them. The matter was decided on 2015-07-01 by the CBDT Circulars & Instructions (Not applicable — statutory text). On those facts the CBDT Circulars & Instructions held as follows. The statutory position is as follows. Section 84 applies to the Black Money Act an enumerated list of Income-tax Act provisions and no others: clauses (c) and (d) of sub-section (1) of s.90, clauses (c) and (d) of sub-section (1) of s.90A, ss.119, 133, 134, 135 and 138, the whole of Chapter XV, and ss.237, 240, 245, 280, 280A, 280B, 280D, 281, 281B and 284. They apply 'with necessary modifications as if the said provisions refer to undisclosed foreign income and asset instead of to income-tax', so each listed provision is read as operating on undisclosed foreign income and assets rather than on income-tax. The operative effect is as much negative as positive: s.84 is the general bridge between the two Acts, and a provision of the Income-tax Act that is not in the enumeration is not carried across by it. Among the provisions that are on the list and are therefore available in a Black Money Act proceeding are s.133 for calling for information, Chapter XV for liability in special cases, s.281 for avoidance of transfers and s.281B for provisional attachment. Among those that are not are s.230 and the tax clearance certificate, the advance-tax provisions in ss.207 to 219 and the interest provisions in ss.234A to 234C, the search and survey provisions in ss.132 and 133A, and the appeal provisions in ss.246A to 260A - the Act carrying its own appeal machinery in ss.15 to 19 and its own interest charge in s.40.
Section 84 is drafted as an enumeration, not as a general application clause. It does not say that the Income-tax Act applies so far as may be, or that its machinery provisions apply; it lists sections, and two entries in the list - clauses (c) and (d) of s.90(1) and of s.90A(1) - are sub-clauses rather than whole sections, which shows the drafter selecting at a fine grain. A list drawn that carefully is most naturally read as exhaustive, and every practical argument in this area proceeds on that footing. No court located has held in terms that it is exhaustive, so the point is to be argued rather than assumed. What the selection shows is a division of labour. The Act keeps for itself everything that fixes liability and enforces it - charge, assessment, appeal, penalty, interest, recovery - and borrows from the Income-tax Act only where a provision is administrative or ancillary: instructions to the authorities, information-gathering, refunds, transfers made to defeat recovery, provisional attachment, service. The absence of the appeal provisions is explained by ss.15 to 19, and the absence of the advance-tax and interest provisions by s.40. The second of those is where the drafting has a gap rather than a design. Section 40 of the Black Money Act charges interest in terms modelled on the Income-tax Act's, and s.40(2) refers to ss.234B and 234C; but neither those sections nor the advance-tax scheme in ss.207 to 219 on which they operate is applied by s.84. The Chennai Bench in Pascal Postel (12 June 2026) held the charge unworkable for that reason, describing the reference in s.40(2) to ss.234B and 234C as 'nothing more than a charging peg with no machinery to hang it upon'. That decision turns on what is absent from s.84 without construing s.84 itself. The same structure runs the other way when the Department invokes a familiar power. Where an Income-tax Act provision is used in a Black Money Act proceeding, the first question is not whether the power was properly exercised but whether it exists in that proceeding at all. That is a question of jurisdiction and is taken before the merits, because if the section is not in the s.84 list there is nothing to answer on the merits. In the words reproduced by the source cited on this page: "shall apply with necessary modifications as if the said provisions refer to undisclosed foreign income and asset instead of to income-tax"
It was decided by the CBDT Circulars & Instructions on 2015-07-01 and is reported as Act No. 22 of 2015, section 84. Binding on the department, not on the assessee or the courts. An assessee may rely on a circular that is beneficial to them. A CBDT circular or instruction binds officers of the department but not the assessee and not the courts. Where a circular helps you, you may hold the department to it. Where it hurts you, it cannot override the Act or a judgment. On section BMA s.84, section BMA s.40, section BMA s.11, section 90(1)(c), section 90(1)(d), section 90A(1)(c), section 90A(1)(d), section 119, section 133, section 134, section 135, section 138, section 237, section 240, section 245, section 280, section 280A, section 280B, section 280D, section 281, section 281B, section 284, section 230, section 234A, section 234B, section 234C, 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. The statutory position is as follows. Section 84 applies to the Black Money Act an enumerated list of Income-tax Act provisions and no others: clauses (c) and (d) of sub-section (1) of s.90, clauses (c) and (d) of sub-section (1) of s.90A, ss.119, 133, 134, 135 and 138, the whole of Chapter XV, and ss.237, 240, 245, 280, 280A, 280B, 280D, 281, 281B and 284. They apply 'with necessary modifications as if the said provisions refer to undisclosed foreign income and asset instead of to income-tax', so each listed provision is read as operating on undisclosed foreign income and assets rather than on income-tax. The operative effect is as much negative as positive: s.84 is the general bridge between the two Acts, and a provision of the Income-tax Act that is not in the enumeration is not carried across by it. Among the provisions that are on the list and are therefore available in a Black Money Act proceeding are s.133 for calling for information, Chapter XV for liability in special cases, s.281 for avoidance of transfers and s.281B for provisional attachment. Among those that are not are s.230 and the tax clearance certificate, the advance-tax provisions in ss.207 to 219 and the interest provisions in ss.234A to 234C, the search and survey provisions in ss.132 and 133A, and the appeal provisions in ss.246A to 260A - the Act carrying its own appeal machinery in ss.15 to 19 and its own interest charge in s.40. It arises in How Tax Law Is Read, Demand, Recovery & Stay, Assessment & Scrutiny and Appeals matters, on section BMA s.84, section BMA s.40, section BMA s.11, section 90(1)(c), section 90(1)(d), section 90A(1)(c), section 90A(1)(d), section 119, section 133, section 134, section 135, section 138, section 237, section 240, section 245, section 280, section 280A, section 280B, section 280D, section 281, section 281B, section 284, section 230, section 234A, section 234B, section 234C of the Income Tax Act 1961, and was decided by Not applicable — statutory text. 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. Note what is on the list and what it gives him: s.133 for calling for information, Chapter XV for liability in special cases, s.281 for avoidance of transfers and s.281B for provisional attachment. Note what is not: s.230 and the tax clearance certificate, the advance-tax and interest provisions in ss.207 to 234C, the search and survey provisions in ss.132 and 133A, and the appeal provisions in ss.246A to 260A, the Black Money Act having its own in ss.15 to 19. Where a provision has been borrowed that is not on the list, take the point as one of jurisdiction; s.84 is the only bridge between the two Acts. Read the list against a current gazetted text before arguing it, since the enumeration can be amended.
Searched for later treatment; none was found. That is not the same as a source affirming it. Two probes on indiankanoon, one for the phrase 'section 84 of the Black Money' and one for 'section 84' with 'Black Money Act' and with 'shall apply', returned between them twenty-one and thirteen results and no decision construing s.84 beyond two: Preetha Krishna v ACIT (Madras High Court, 7 September 2020), which the library holds, on the omission of s.230; and Srinidhi Karti Chidambaram v PCCIT (Madras High Court, 2 November 2018), no copy of which reaches its conclusions. No copy of Preetha Krishna was opened for this note, and two further differently worded searches did not surface one, so what it decides is carried here at second hand and should be read before it is cited. Pascal Postel (Chennai Bench, 12 June 2026) decides the point about the advance-tax machinery without deciding anything about s.84 in terms. Whether the list in s.84 is exhaustive has not been decided by any court located. The text of the section is as it reads on the page opened and has not been checked against a gazetted text for amendment. 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.
This is a note of the statutory position and of the decided points that turn on it, not a decision. No court located has held in terms that the enumeration in s.84 is exhaustive; that inference is drawn above and should be argued rather than assumed. The list is reproduced from the text of s.84 as printed on the indiankanoon page read; a Finance Act amendment adding or removing a section would not be visible there. Section 40 of the Black Money Act is tagged because Pascal Postel reads it against the absence of the advance-tax provisions from s.84, and s.11 because the Delhi Bench in Bindu Todi held that the Taxation and Other Laws (Relaxation and Amendment of Certain Provisions) Act 2020 does not reach the Black Money Act at all - a separate point from s.84 but the same question of what does and does not cross over. An independent reading confirmed the text of s.84 and its enumeration word for word, and the key quote, and corrected two sourcing defects. This entry formerly listed https://indiankanoon.org/doc/97874346/ as corroboration in the belief that it was Preetha Krishna; it is not - it is Jyotsna Suri v DDIT (Inv.) (Delhi High Court, 21 March 2025), an interim order on a Black Money Act s.10 show-cause notice which supports nothing stated here - and it has been removed. The summary's statement that the Madras High Court in Preetha Krishna held the Department could not restrain departure under s.230 has been put in the hedged form used in the validity note, because that judgment was 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.
The statutory position is as follows. Section 84 applies to the Black Money Act an enumerated list of Income-tax Act provisions and no others: clauses (c) and (d) of sub-section (1) of s.90, clauses (c) and (d) of sub-section (1) of s.90A, ss.119, 133, 134, 135 and 138, the whole of Chapter XV, and ss.237, 240, 245, 280, 280A, 280B, 280D, 281, 281B and 284. They apply 'with necessary modifications as if the said provisions refer to undisclosed foreign income and asset instead of to income-tax', so each listed provision is read as operating on undisclosed foreign income and assets rather than on income-tax. The operative effect is as much negative as positive: s.84 is the general bridge between the two Acts, and a provision of the Income-tax Act that is not in the enumeration is not carried across by it. Among the provisions that are on the list and are therefore available in a Black Money Act proceeding are s.133 for calling for information, Chapter XV for liability in special cases, s.281 for avoidance of transfers and s.281B for provisional attachment. Among those that are not are s.230 and the tax clearance certificate, the advance-tax provisions in ss.207 to 219 and the interest provisions in ss.234A to 234C, the search and survey provisions in ss.132 and 133A, and the appeal provisions in ss.246A to 260A - the Act carrying its own appeal machinery in ss.15 to 19 and its own interest charge in s.40.
TaxSphere, “Section 84 of the Black Money Act - the Income-tax Act provisions applied”, https://taxnotice.vittsphere.com/caselaw/case/statutory-position-bma-84-which-income-tax-act-provisions-apply/ (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 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?
The Income-tax Officer lodged a police complaint about false returns claiming refunds, the police filed a charge-sheet, and the Magistrate took cognizance of IPC offences. Can that be done without sanction under s.279 and a complaint by an authorised authority?
The letter from the Investigation wing cites a provision that does not exist. Is it void for that?
The search on me was illegal. Can I stop the department using what it took?
