Black Money Act Under Review: Government Panel to Revisit Harsh Penalties and Implementation Challenges

Introduction: A Decade-Long Experiment Under Scrutiny

A decade after the enactment of one of India’s most stringent anti-evasion laws, the government has initiated a comprehensive review of the Black Money (Undisclosed Foreign Income and Assets) and Imposition of Tax Act, 2015 (hereinafter referred to as “the Black Money Act” or “BMA”). This review comes at a critical juncture when legal practitioners, tax experts, and enforcement agencies have raised significant concerns about the Act’s draconian provisions, implementation challenges, and its overlap with the existing Income Tax Act, 1961.​[1]

The Black Money Act was introduced as a flagship reform under Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s administration, fulfilling a key electoral promise to combat tax evasion and bring back illicit wealth stashed in foreign jurisdictions. However, despite its laudable objectives, the Act’s excessively harsh penalty structure and rigid enforcement mechanisms have rendered it counterproductive to its stated goal of encouraging voluntary compliance.​[2]

Historical Context and Legislative Intent

The Genesis of the Black Money Act

The Black Money (Undisclosed Foreign Income and Assets) and Imposition of Tax Act, 2015 came into effect on July 1, 2015, during the early tenure of the Modi government, which had made anti-corruption and the retrieval of black money a central political plank. The Act was enacted under the broader agenda of combating tax evasion and addressing the longstanding issue of unaccounted wealth held by Indian residents in foreign jurisdictions.​[3]

The legislative intent behind the BMA was threefold:

1. Detection and Penalization: To identify and impose penalties on undisclosed foreign income and assets
2. Deterrence: To create a strong deterrent effect preventing future tax evasion
3. Revenue Recovery: To demonstrate the government’s commitment to bringing back black money and increasing tax compliance​​[1][4]

The One-Time Compliance Window

The Act initially provided a one-time compliance opportunity wherein persons holding undisclosed foreign assets could file declarations and regularize their position by paying a penalty at the rate of 100% of the tax payable. This window was designed to encourage voluntary disclosure while simultaneously establishing a framework for strict enforcement thereafter.​

Constitutional Framework and Scope of the Act

Definition of Undisclosed Foreign Income and Assets

The Black Money Act defines “undisclosed foreign income and asset” to include:​

1. Income from a source located outside India which has not been disclosed in tax returns filed
2. Income from a source outside India for which no tax returns have been filed
3. Value of an undisclosed asset located outside India

Critical Legal Observation: The Act’s scope extends beyond mere income to encompass the value of assets themselves, creating a comprehensive net for foreign holdings that may have escaped the purview of the Income Tax Act, 1961.​ [5]

Tax Authorities and Jurisdiction

The relevant tax authorities and their jurisdiction under the BMA are specified as per the Income Tax Act. These authorities are vested with powers of inspection of documents and evidence, with proceedings required to be conducted judicially.​​ [4]

The Punitive Structure: A Critical Analysis

Tax and Penalty Framework

The Black Money Act imposes what many legal practitioners and tax experts have termed an “unsustainable” penalty structure: ​[2]

Tax Liability

• Flat Rate: 30% tax on undisclosed foreign income or assets​​ [3]
• No Exemptions: No deduction, exemption, or set-off of carried forward losses as provided under the Income Tax Act​
• Application: Applicable from Assessment Year 2016-17 onwards

Penalty Structure

• Primary Penalty: 90% of the value of the undisclosed asset​​[4]
• Effective Liability: Combined tax and penalty equals 120% of the undisclosed amount
• Non-filing Penalty: Flat penalty of Rs. 10 lakh for failure to file return​​

Illustrative Example: If a taxpayer has concealed Rs. 1 crore in a foreign bank account:

• Tax liability: Rs. 30 lakh (30%)
• Penalty: Rs. 90 lakh (90%)
• Total liability: Rs. 1.2 crore (120% of concealed amount)

This structure creates an effective liability exceeding the actual undisclosed amount, which critics argue defeats the purpose of encouraging voluntary disclosure.​​ [2]

Criminal Prosecution Provisions

The Act contains stringent criminal prosecution provisions that have been particularly controversial: ​​[4]

Offences and Punishment

Section 49 – Wilful Attempt to Evade Tax:

• Imprisonment: Rigorous imprisonment for a term of 3 to 10 years
• Fine: In addition to imprisonment
• Application: For willful attempt to evade tax, penalty, or interest

Section 50 – Failure to Furnish Return:

• Imprisonment: Rigorous imprisonment for a term of 6 months to 7 years
• Fine: In addition to imprisonment
• Application: For failure to furnish return of income in respect of foreign income or assets​

Critical Legal Issue: The automatic initiation of criminal prosecution proceedings, even for technical or unintentional non-disclosure, has been characterized as “draconian” by various High Courts and legal experts.​​[2]

Core Issues Necessitating Black Money Act Review

Issue 1: Overlap and Inconsistency with Income Tax Act

One of the most significant criticisms of the BMA is its overlap with the Income Tax Act, 1961, creating what legal scholars term “double jeopardy” situations.​​

Specific Areas of Conflict:

1. Differential Tax Computation: The same foreign income may be subject to different tax calculations under the Income Tax Act and the Black Money Act, leading to inconsistent liabilities​[4]
2. Multiple Penalties: Taxpayers face the prospect of penalties under both Acts for the same default, violating the principle against double punishment​​
3. Procedural Confusion: Different assessment procedures, timelines, and appellate mechanisms create confusion and administrative burden​

Judicial Precedent: The Calcutta High Court in a 2019 judgment held that prosecution under the Black Money Act during the pendency of penalty proceedings under the Income Tax Act does not amount to double jeopardy, though this interpretation has been contested by legal practitioners.​

Issue 2: Lack of Discretion and Flexibility

Unlike the Income Tax Act, which provides assessing officers with discretionary powers to consider the facts and circumstances of each case, the Black Money Act mandates automatic imposition of penalties and prosecution.​​[2]

Consequences of Rigidity:

• No distinction between willful evasion and inadvertent oversight
• Inability to consider genuine hardship cases
• Discouragement of voluntary compliance
• Increased litigation burden on courts​​

Practitioner Perspective: “The mandatory nature of penalties under Section 42 and 43 leaves no room for tax officers to exercise judgment, even in cases where the non-disclosure was clearly unintentional or involved minor amounts,” as noted by senior tax practitioners.​

Issue 3: Disproportionate Penalties for Minor Violations

The Act imposes flat penalties regardless of the quantum of undisclosed assets, creating disproportionate outcomes:​ [4]

• Rs. 10 lakh penalty for non-filing of return, even if the undisclosed asset value is Rs. 5 lakh or less (prior to 2024 amendment)
• Mandatory criminal prosecution for even technical violations
• No gradation of penalties based on the severity of the offense

Issue 4: Valuation and Assessment Challenges

Current Market Value vs. Acquisition Value: The Act requires assessment based on current market value of foreign assets, rather than their value at the time of acquisition.​

Illustrative Case: An asset acquired in 2004 for Rs. 1 crore, now worth Rs. 20 crore, attracts penalty on the current Rs. 20 crore value, even though the original non-disclosure was of Rs. 1 crore.​

This approach has been criticized as inequitable and potentially confiscatory in nature.

Issue 5: Implementation and Enforcement Challenges

Despite the harsh provisions, the Act has not achieved its stated objectives in terms of actual revenue recovery:​

• Limited voluntary disclosures due to excessive penalty structure
• Difficulty in establishing beneficial ownership of offshore assets
• Complex international information exchange protocols
• Challenges in asset valuation and verification​​

Recent Legislative Reforms and Relief Measures

Finance Act 2024 Amendments

Recognizing the harsh impact of the BMA, the Finance (No. 2) Act, 2024 introduced significant relief measures effective from October 1, 2024:​ [6]

Key Amendments to Sections 42 and 43:

The amended proviso states that penalty provisions shall not apply to:

• Assets (other than immovable property)
• Where aggregate value does not exceed Rs. 20 lakh
• At any time during the relevant previous year​[6]

CBDT Instruction dated August 18, 2025

The Central Board of Direct Taxes (CBDT), exercising powers under Section 84 of the BMA read with Section 119 of the Income Tax Act, issued clarificatory instructions: ​[7]

Core Directive:

“Prosecution proceedings under Section 49 and/or 50 of BMA, 2015, would not be initiated in cases where penalty under Section 42 and/or 43 of the BMA, 2015 is not imposed or imposable in relation to assets covered under the proviso to aforesaid sections i.e. an asset or assets (other than immovable property) where the aggregate value of such asset or assets does not exceed a value equivalent to Rs. 20 lakh at any time during the relevant previous year.”​

Evolution of Relief Provisions:

​

Important Limitation: These relief measures do NOT extend to immovable foreign property, where any concealment continues to attract both penalty and prosecution.​

The Review Committee: Composition and Mandate

Committee Structure

The government has constituted an internal committee under the leadership of Amal Pusp, Principal Chief Commissioner of Income Tax for Uttar Pradesh (East) region to undertake a comprehensive review of the Black Money Act. ​​[1]

A parallel committee under Chief Commissioner Jayaram Raipura has been established to examine ways to improve the quality of scrutiny assessments.​

Committee Composition

The review panel comprises: ​[4]

1. Senior officers from the Income Tax Department
2. Representatives from the Central Board of Direct Taxes (CBDT)
3. Officials from the Ministry of Finance
4. Legal experts specializing in tax law
5. Representatives from enforcement agencies dealing with cross-border financial information exchange

Terms of Reference

The committee has been tasked with examining:​​ [4]

1. Interplay Analysis: Examining the interaction between the BMA and the Income Tax Act, identifying areas of convergence and divergence
2. Scenario Assessment: Envisaging different scenarios of taxability and their legal implications
3. Conflict Identification: Identifying points of conflict with Income Tax regulations
4. Implementation Challenges: Analyzing challenges faced in invoking and enforcing the Act
5. Data Management: Addressing the handling of the massive volume of data received from various countries under information exchange agreements
6. Penalty Rationalization: Reviewing harsh clauses including excessive penalties, retrospective tax assessment rates, and automatic criminal prosecution provisions

Potential Reform Measures Under Consideration

1. Penalty Rationalization

Proposed Approach: Introduction of graded penalty structure with ceiling limits:​​ [2]

• Replace the current 90% flat penalty with a tiered structure (e.g., 1x to 2x of tax liability)
• Penalty proportionate to the quantum and duration of concealment
• Differential treatment for first-time and repeat offenders

2. Decriminalization of Minor Offenses

Proposed Approach: Elimination of criminal prosecution for technical or minor violations:​​ [2]

• Restrict criminal prosecution to cases of willful and substantial evasion
• Convert minor offenses into civil defaults with monetary penalties
• Introduction of threshold limits for criminal prosecution

Precedent: Similar approach adopted in GST law where compounding of offenses is permitted for amounts below specified thresholds.

3. Valuation Methodology Reform

Proposed Approach: Shift from current market value to acquisition cost for penalty calculation:​ [4]

• Base penalties on the value of assets at the time of acquisition
• Apply indexation benefits for inflation
• Reduce the punitive impact on long-held assets that have appreciated

4. Voluntary Disclosure Window

Proposed Approach: Introduction of a time-bound voluntary disclosure scheme:​​[2][4]

• One-time opportunity for taxpayers to come forward
• Reduced penalty rates (e.g., 50% of tax liability)
• Immunity from criminal prosecution
• Clear sunset clause to maintain deterrent effect

Precedent: The Income Declaration Scheme, 2016 and various amnesty schemes under the Income Tax Act.

5. Harmonization with Income Tax Act

Proposed Approach: Elimination of overlaps and alignment of provisions:​​[4]

• Unified tax computation methodology
• Prevention of double penalties for the same default
• Consistent appellate and dispute resolution mechanisms
• Clear demarcation of applicability between the two Acts

6. Procedural Safeguards

Proposed Approach: Introduction of due process protections:​

• Mandatory pre-prosecution notice providing opportunity to explain
• Right to personal hearing before penalty imposition
• Principles of natural justice to be expressly incorporated
• Burden of proof standards to be clarified

Legal Principle: As observed in various judgments, “penalties, being in the nature of civil consequences, must still adhere to principles of proportionality and fairness.”

7. Discretionary Powers to Assessing Officers

Proposed Approach: Balanced discretion with accountability:​​ [2]

• Authority to waive or reduce penalties in genuine hardship cases
• Guidelines for exercise of discretion to prevent arbitrary action
• Supervisory review mechanism
• Documented reasoning for decisions

Implications of the Review: Multi-Stakeholder Perspective

For Taxpayers and Legal Practitioners

Positive Implications:

1. Reduced Compliance Burden: Rationalized penalties may encourage voluntary disclosure and reduce litigation
2. Greater Certainty: Clearer guidelines on interaction between BMA and Income Tax Act
3. Proportionate Penalties: Relief for unintentional or minor violations
4. Due Process: Enhanced procedural safeguards protecting taxpayer rights​​

Concerns:

1. Potential for Abuse: Relaxed provisions may be exploited by willful evaders
2. Moral Hazard: Differential treatment between early and late compliers may create perception of unfairness
3. Revenue Impact: Reduced penalties may affect government revenue collections​

For Tax Administration

Positive Implications:

1. Improved Compliance: More taxpayers likely to come forward voluntarily
2. Reduced Litigation: Fewer disputes reaching courts and tribunals
3. Efficient Resource Allocation: Focus enforcement on serious cases
4. International Alignment: Harmonization with global best practices​​

Challenges:

1. Administrative Complexity: Implementing graded penalty structures
2. Training Requirements: Officers need guidance on exercising discretion
3. Monitoring Mechanisms: Ensuring consistent application across jurisdictions

For the Broader Legal Framework

Systemic Benefits:

1. Constitutional Validity: Addressing concerns about disproportionate and potentially unconstitutional penalties
2. Judicial Efficiency: Reduced burden on High Courts and tribunals
3. Policy Coherence: Better integration with overall tax policy objectives
4. International Cooperation: Enhanced credibility in bilateral tax agreements​​

International Comparisons and Best Practices

Global Approach to Foreign Asset Disclosure

United States – FATCA:

• Penalties range from $10,000 to $50,000 for non-willful violations
• Criminal prosecution reserved for willful evasion cases
• Offshore Voluntary Disclosure Programs (OVDP) with reduced penalties

United Kingdom – Offshore Disclosure Facilities:

• Tiered penalty structure based on disclosure timing
• Civil investigation of fraud for serious cases
• Maximum penalty generally 200% of tax liability

Australia – Offshore Voluntary Disclosure Initiative:

• Penalty reductions up to 90% for voluntary disclosure
• Criminal prosecution only in egregious cases
• Emphasis on administrative resolution

Key Takeaway: Most developed jurisdictions adopt a balanced approach with proportionate penalties and emphasis on voluntary compliance rather than purely punitive measures.​​ [2] [4]

Critical Analysis: Balancing Deterrence and Compliance

The Deterrence Paradox

The Black Money Act represents a classic case of the “deterrence paradox” in tax policy: ​​[2] [4]

Initial Impact (2015-2017):

• Strong deterrent effect on potential evaders
• High-profile cases generated publicity and fear

Long-term Consequences (2017-2025):

• Counterproductive for voluntary compliance
• Pushed evasion underground rather than encouraging disclosure
• Created adversarial relationship between taxpayers and tax administration
• Generated extensive litigation without commensurate revenue recovery

The Compliance Equation

Optimal tax compliance requires balancing:

1. Deterrence: Sufficient penalties to discourage evasion
2. Proportionality: Penalties commensurate with the offense
3. Certainty: Clear rules and predictable outcomes
4. Fairness: Distinction between willful and inadvertent violations​​

Current Status: The BMA scores high on deterrence but fails on proportionality, leading to overall suboptimal compliance outcomes.[4]

Judicial Approach and Evolving Jurisprudence

High Court Observations

Several High Courts have expressed concerns about the harsh provisions of the BMA, though no provision has been struck down as unconstitutional.​​ [2]

Common Judicial Themes:

1. Emphasis on distinguishing between technical and substantive violations
2. Application of principles of natural justice even in summary proceedings
3. Consideration of proportionality in penalty imposition
4. Recognition of genuine hardship cases

Tribunal Decisions

The Mumbai Income Tax Appellate Tribunal in a significant 2023 decision upheld penalty under Section 43 even where income from foreign assets was declared, reasoning that the penalty is for non-disclosure in Schedule FA, not for undisclosed income per se.​ [5]

Key Holding:

“The provisions of Section 43 of the BMA do not provide any room not to levy a penalty even if the foreign asset is disclosed in the books, because the penalty is levied only on the non-disclosure of foreign assets in Schedule FA.”​

This strict interpretation highlights the Act’s focus on procedural compliance over substantive tax evasion, a distinction that the review committee may need to address.

Practical Guidance for Legal Practitioners

Current Advisory Framework

For Clients with Undisclosed Foreign Assets:

1. Immediate Disclosure: Advise voluntary disclosure under revised threshold provisions (Rs. 20 lakh) introduced in Finance Act 2024​
2. Asset Categorization: Carefully distinguish between movable and immovable property (immovable property not covered by recent relief measures)​[7]
3. Documentation: Maintain comprehensive records of:
   • Source of funds for foreign asset acquisition
   • Annual income/gains from foreign assets
   • Tax payments in foreign jurisdictions
   • Claims for foreign tax credit​
4. Schedule FA Compliance: Ensure meticulous completion of Schedule FA (Foreign Assets) even if income is disclosed elsewhere in the return​

Litigation Strategy

For Ongoing Proceedings:

1. Penalty Appeals: Challenge disproportionate penalties on constitutional grounds of Article 14 (equality) and Article 19(1)(g) (right to profession)
2. Prosecution Challenges: [7]
   • Argue for pre-prosecution notice and opportunity to be heard
   • Distinguish between civil defaults and criminal offenses
   • Cite CBDT instructions dated August 18, 2025 for cases below Rs. 20 lakh threshold​
3. Double Jeopardy Defense: While the Calcutta High Court has ruled against this argument, it remains a viable ground for appeal, particularly in light of the review committee’s mandate​

Due Diligence in Cross-Border Transactions

Preventive Compliance Measures:

1. NRI Clients: Enhanced scrutiny of foreign assets and income
2. Business Clients: Review transfer pricing documentation for consistency with foreign asset disclosures
3. HNI Clients: Comprehensive wealth mapping including offshore structures
4. Compliance Calendar: Annual Schedule FA review and disclosure verification

Anticipated Timeline and Implementation

Review Process Timeline

Phase 1 (October 2025 – March 2026): Committee examination and stakeholder consultations​[1]

Phase 2 (April – June 2026): Draft recommendations and inter-ministerial review

Phase 3 (July – December 2026): Legislative drafting and parliamentary approval

Phase 4 (2027 onwards): Implementation and transitional provisions

Note: This is a speculative timeline based on typical legislative processes for significant tax reforms.

Expected Legislative Vehicle

Amendments to the BMA are likely to be introduced through:

1. Finance Bill 2026 or 2027: Most probable route
2. Standalone Amendment Bill: For comprehensive restructuring
3. Subordinate Legislation: For procedural modifications under existing framework​

Conclusion: Toward a Balanced Framework

The government’s decision to review the Black Money Act represents a mature acknowledgment that excessively harsh laws, while creating initial deterrence, ultimately prove counterproductive to the goals of tax compliance and revenue collection.​​

Key Takeaways for Stakeholders

For Policymakers:
The challenge lies in recalibrating the Act to maintain its deterrent effect while eliminating provisions that discourage voluntary compliance. International best practices suggest that proportionate penalties, procedural safeguards, and periodic amnesty windows achieve better long-term outcomes than purely punitive approaches.

For Tax Practitioners:
The review provides an opportunity to engage constructively with the process through bar associations and professional bodies. Detailed case studies demonstrating the Act’s unintended consequences on genuine taxpayers will be crucial inputs for the committee.

For Taxpayers:
The current juncture presents a strategic window. Those with undisclosed foreign assets should consider voluntary disclosure before the review process concludes, as subsequent amendments may introduce stricter “no further opportunity” clauses to maintain credibility of the reformed framework.

The Path Forward

A reformed Black Money Act should embody the following principles:

1. Proportionality: Penalties commensurate with the quantum and nature of the offense
2. Progressivity: Graded consequences from civil penalties to criminal prosecution
3. Procedural Fairness: Adequate opportunity to contest allegations before punitive action
4. Clarity: Unambiguous demarcation from Income Tax Act provisions
5. Flexibility: Discretionary powers balanced with accountability mechanisms
6. Pragmatism: Recognition that tax compliance is achieved through carrots as much as sticks​​

As the review committee deliberates, the legal fraternity, tax professionals, and civil society must engage actively to ensure that the reformed framework serves the twin objectives of combating tax evasion while respecting constitutional guarantees of fairness and proportionality. The outcome of Black Money Act review will significantly shape India’s approach to international taxation and asset disclosure for the coming decade.

References

[1] Black Money Act 2.0: Government Panel to Review Law, Look for Measures to Align it with I-T Act Available at: Black Money Act 2.0: Government to Review Law After a Decade – Outlook Business

[2] India Rethinks Its Black Money Law: Is a Softer Approach the Answer? Available at: India Rethinks Its Black Money Law: Is a Softer Approach the Answer? – Dainik Jagran English

[3] The Undisclosed Foreign Income and Assets (Imposition of Tax) Bill, 2015 Available at: The Undisclosed Foreign Income and Assets (Imposition of Tax) Bill, 2015

[4] Black Money act under review; What’s the big plan Available at: Black Money act under review; What’s the big plan? Ankit Agrawal Study IQ

[5] India – Mumbai Tax Tribunal upholds penalty under Black Money Act for non-disclosure of assets outside India Available at: India – Mumbai Tax Tribunal upholds penalty under Black Money Act for non-disclosure of assets outsi – BDO

 [6] CBDT Amends Black Money Act Instructions to Exempt Minor Foreign Assets Available at: CBDT Amends Black Money Act Instructions to Exempt Minor Foreign Assets

[7] Select black money holders to get relief: Income tax dept. to not not apply penalty and prosecution in these situations Available at: Select black money holders to get relief: Income tax dept. to not not apply penalty and prosecution in these situations – CAalley.com

[8] CBDT’s New Directive on Black Money Act: A Pragmatic Shift from Prosecution to Proportionality  Available at: CBDT’s New Directive on Black Money Act