BMA s.71(d)(iii)

BMA s.71(d)(iii) — the law in short

What the courts have decided on section BMA s.71(d)(iii), in one screen. Read this first; open an entry when you need the facts, the reasoning and the source.

• Anila Rasiklal Mehta v Union of India High CourtCuts both waysNo later treatment found
  The department got my foreign account details under an exchange-of-information agreement, so s.71(d)(iii) shut me out of the s.59 declaration window. Does Gautam Khaitan still answer me?
  The Bombay High Court said that point was not decided in Gautam Khaitan and left it open. On the notice of motion it refused a stay of the s.10(1) notices, but directed that no coercive measures be taken while the department proceeds, and kept the Article 14 and Article 20 challenge for the hearing of the writ petition itself. Nothing was decided on the merits.
• Anandi Kaushik Laijawala v DDIT (Inv.) ITATHelps taxpayerNo later treatment found
  The officer issued several s.10 notices over two years and assessed one of the years. Does it matter which year the notice falls in?
  It is decisive. Where the asset was acquired before the Act commenced and no declaration was made under s.59, s.72(c) deems it to have been acquired in the year in which the s.10 notice is issued, so the assessment can only be for the assessment year that follows that year. A notice issued in April 2018 could therefore support an assessment only for assessment year 2019-20, and the Mumbai Bench quashed assessments made for assessment year 2018-19. A defective first notice could not be saved by a corrigendum or by s.81.

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.