Sec. 147 of Income Tax Act, 1961— Reassessment—  The notice of motion has been sought for by the petitioners for stay of impugned notice dated 20.12.2017 as well as subsequent notices issued under the provisions of the Black Money (Undisclosed Foreign Income and Assets) and Imposition of Tax Act, 2015.In the year 2013, respondents claimed that they had information that assessee, his son along with another related person, who is stated to cousin of assessee were holding undisclosed foreign accounts in the name of Red House Finance Limited, a body corporate incorporated and registered in Singapore. Pursuant to such information, summons under Section 131 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (briefly ‘the Act’ hereinafter) came to be issued to assessee, his son and cousin of assessee. However, assessees denied  having any interest in Red House Finance Limited. According to the petitioners, the only foreign entity in which they had an interest was Sun Hill International Pte. Limited, Singapore which factum was disclosed in the return filed by them before the income tax authorities. It was further stated that cousin of assessee was an overseas resident for the last 30 years and was carrying on overseas business.  On March 30 / 31, 2016 income tax authorities issued notices to assessee, his son and his wife under Section 148 of the Act alleging that income chargeable to tax for the assessment years 2008-09 and 2009-10 had escaped assessment within the meaning of Section 147 of the Act. It was stated that similar enquiries were made with respect to cousin of assessee and his wife. DCIT, passed assessment orders dated 30.12.2017 in respect of the assessees under the Act.  While passing the assessment order on reopening, reference was made to Section 4(3) of the Black Money Act to the effect that the income included in the total undisclosed foreign income and asset under the Black Money Act would not form part of the total income under the Act. It was mentioned that merit of escaped income was not gone through which was left to be decided by the authorities under the Black Money Act.Assessees filed writ petition for seeking reliefs. Contention of the petitioners is that by virtue of Section 72(c) of the Black Money Act, the same has been given retrospective operation though an opportunity is granted to an assessee under the Black Money Act to make a declaration in respect of any undisclosed asset located outside India. If a declaration is made, the same is chargeable to tax and payment of penalty. It is contended that Sections 59 to 63 of the Black Money Act create a vested right in favour of every assessee under the said Act to make a declaration and thereafter make payment of tax and penalty.

Court find that facts of the present case are distinguishable and that the issue aisedby assessees that they were statutorily barred from making declaration under section 59 of the black money Act. In such circumstances and taking an overall view of the matter, Court feel that while respondents may proceed pursuant to the impugned notices dated December 20, 2017, no coercive measures may be taken against the assessees if the occasion so arises. Therefore, Notice of motion was discharged. --- ANILA RASIKLAL MEHTA vs. UOI. (2020) 23 ITCD Online 9 (Bom)