SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2025 Supreme(Mad) 3756

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
C. SARAVANAN, J.
Arun Mammen & Ors. - Petitioners
Versus
The Deputy Director of Income Tax (Investigation), Chennai & Ors. - Respondents
W.P.Nos.1153, 1159, 1162 and 1164 of 2021 and W.M.P.Nos.1293, 1295, 1299, 1304, 1305 and 1306 of 2021
Decided On : 02-01-2025

Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioners: Mr. R.V. Easwar Senior Counsel for Mr. Suhrith Parthasarathy.
For the Respondents: Mr. A.P. Srinivas Senior Standing Counsel and Mr. A.N.R. Jayaprathap Junior Standing Counsel.

The continuation of proceedings under the Black Money Act is impermissible where tax compliance has been established before the Act's enforcement.

Headnote:(A) Black Money (Undisclosed Foreign Income and Assets) and Imposition of Tax Act, 2015 - Section 10(1) - Income Tax Act, 1961 - Sections 131 and 148 - Petitions to quash notices under the Black Money Act were allowed as the applicants had filed their Returns prior to the Act's implementation - The proceedings under the notices could not be continued as it would contravene the Act's provisions. (Paras 5, 8, 29, 34, 36)

(B) Tax Settlement - The applicants were permitted to settle disputes concerning undisclosed foreign income under Chapter XIX-A of the Income Tax Act as their applications were filed before the Black Money Act came into effect. (Paras 8, 31, 36)

Facts of the case:
Petitioners filed Writ Petitions to quash notices issued under the Black Money Act after having filed Income Returns prior to its enforcement on 01.07.2015. Previous attempts to settle the disputes under the Income Tax Act were rejected but later allowed by Interim Board of Settlement.

Findings of Court:
The continuation of proceedings initiated under the Black Money Act against the petitioners following their compliance with tax regulations would be unjust.

Issues: Whether the issuance of notices under the Black Money Act could proceed post compliance of prior tax regulations.

Ratio Decidendi: The court noted that since the petitioners filed Returns before the Black Money Act's enforcement, any subsequent actions under the Act were inappropriate.

Result: Writ Petitions allowed.

Table of Content
1. conclusion and order of court. (Para 1 , 38)
2. writ petitions filed to quash notices. (Para 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6)
3. settlement commission decisions and implications. (Para 7 , 8 , 9)
4. contentions regarding the pending proceedings. (Para 10 , 11 , 12 , 16)
5. analysis of relevant legal provisions. (Para 13 , 14 , 18 , 19 , 27)
6. background on income tax compliance. (Para 15 , 20 , 21)
7. assessment of legal compliance and previous rulings. (Para 17)
8. ruling on progress of notices. (Para 22 , 24 , 28 , 29)
9. application of the black money act's provisions. (Para 26 , 35)
10. court's previous findings on the matter. (Para 30 , 32 , 33)
11. final judgment on the legality of the impugned notices. (Para 34 , 36 , 37)

ORDER :

By this Common Order, all these Writ Petitions are being disposed of.

2. These Writ Petitions have been filed by the respective petitioners for a Writ of Certiorari, to quash the Impugned Notice dated 27.02.2018 issued under Section 10 (1) of the Black Money (Undisclosed Foreign Income and Assets) and Imposition of Tax Act, 2015 and all further Consequential Notices dated 03.03.2020, 16.10.2020 and 26.12.2020 and for a Writ of Prohibition, to prohibit the respondents from proceeding further with the aforesaid notices issued to the respective petitioners.

3. The said Act came into force on 01.07.2015. Even prior to the Act came into force on 01.07.2015, the respective petitioners appeared to have received notices under Section 131 of the INCOME TAX ACT , 1961 for the Assessment Years 2005-2006 to 2011-2012. Under these circumstances, the respective petitioners filed Return of Income for the Assessment Years 2005-2006 to 2011-2012 on 21.05.2015.

4. The respective petitioners opted to settle the dispute before the Income Tax Settlement Commission (ITSC) by filing Statement of Facts on 10.07.2015. This was about few days after the Black Money (Undisclosed Foreign Income and Assets) and Imposition of Tax Act, 2015 came into force with effect from 01.07.2015.

5. By an order dated 30.06.2015, the Settlement Commission rejected the applications. Under these circumstances, the respective petitioners once again filed fresh applications on 10.07.2015 before the Settlement Commission which were again rejected by the Settlement Commission on 15.07.2015 on the ground that the income which are liable to tax under the Black Money (Undisclosed Foreign Income and Assets) and Imposition of Tax Act, 2015 cannot be settled under Chapter XIX-A (19-A) of the INCOME TAX ACT , 1961.

6. Under these circumstances, the respective petitioners approached this Court in W.P.No.22216 of 2015 and W.P.No.22219 of 2015. By an Order dated 21.06.2016, this Court was pleased to allow the above Writ Petitions with the following observations:-

“7. In the light of the above stand taken which is based on the Explanatory Note dated 02.07.2015 issued in Circular No.12 of 2015, as the Black Money (Undisclosed Foreign Income Tax and Assets) and Imposition of Tax Act, 2015 comes into effect from 01.07.2015 and the petitioners had filed their Return of Income on 21.05.2015 and notice was issued under Section 148 of the INCOME TAX ACT by the Assessing Officer on 29.05.2015 which is before coming into effect of the provisions of the Black Money Act, 2015, the applications submitted by the petitioners before the Commission are maintainable.

8. Accordingly, the Writ Petitions are allowed and the impugned orders are set aside and the petitioners are directed to file an application before the Income Tax Settlement Commission, which shall be considered by the Commission in accordance with the provisions of the Act. No costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed.”

7. Pursuant to the Directions of this Court dated 21.06.2016 in W.P.No.22216 of 2015 and W.P.No.22219 of 2015, the Settlement Commission passed an Order dated 06.12.2017 on merits and thus, rejected the applications filed by the respective petitioners to settle the dispute und

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top