BMA s.46

BMA s.46 — the law in short

What the courts have decided on section BMA s.46, in one screen. Read this first; open an entry when you need the facts, the reasoning and the source.

• Krishna Das Agrawal v Income Tax Department High CourtHelps departmentNo later treatment found
  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?
  No. The Rajasthan High Court declined to stay penalty proceedings under the Black Money Act while the appeal against the assessment was pending before the appellate authority. The pendency of an appeal does not by itself suspend penalty proceedings, the authority has to complete them within the period fixed by s.47, and any penalty order can itself be appealed. Liberty was reserved to move against coercive steps taken after the penalty order.
• Prasad Nimmagadda v DIT (Inv) ITATHelps taxpayerNo later treatment found
  I disclosed the foreign assets in every year except one. Does the s.43 penalty for that one year stand?
  Not on these facts. The Tribunal deleted a s.43 penalty where the same foreign assets had been shown in Schedule FA for the years before and the years after, and the source of the investment had been accepted. It reasoned from s.46 that if the penalty were bound to follow the default there would have been no purpose in requiring a show-cause notice at all.

Listed strongest first: Supreme Court, then High Court, then Tribunal, then CBDT. Nothing here has yet been read in full by a chartered accountant — open an entry to see where it came from.