Empowering Swifter Action Against Black Money
In order to further bolster action against black money, the CBDT issued a fresh circular allowing for the assignment of all cases pending with Jurisdictional Income-tax Authorities, excluding those cases wherein concurrent jurisdiction is being exercised by investigation wing officers, shall be transferred to the respective Central Charges.
The jurisdiction of a Black Money (BM) Act case shall be decided as per the jurisdiction of the said case under the Income Tax (IT) Act,1961 under section 120 or any other provision of that Act.
In view of this, cases under the IT Act with jurisdictional authorities, where proceedings under the BM Act are pending, shall be transferred to their respective Central Charges.
To operationalise smooth transfer of BMA cases detailed multi-point guidelines have been issued – including for cases that are currently in process at the National eAssessment Centre (NeAC), National Faceless Penalty Centre (NFPC) or National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC).
The Additional Commissioners & Joint Commissioners of respective ranges of Central Charges, where the case has been transferred shall exercise the powers and perform the functions of Assessing Officer under the BM Act subsequent to this change in line with the notification SO 2299 (E) issued by the CBDT in August 2015.
In 2017 in order to speed up investigations, the board had also issued guidelines allowing for concurrent assignment of the functions of Assessing Officer (AO) to Deputy Directors & Additional Directors of the Investigation Wing. It was observed that while offences under the BM Act were usually discovered by officers of the Investigation Wing.
After the completion of the investigation, the information was then handed over to the Assessing Officers, who are the competent authority under the BM Act to take further action, who would then proceed further in the matter. This led to undue delays in the completion of the process resulting in protracted timelines thus defeating the purpose of the BM Act. By exercising concurrent jurisdiction in this manner, these unwarranted and unwanted delays in timelines could be resolved.
Further, the guidelines also clearly delineated the expeditious process to be followed by officers to issue notices – which despite the lack of stipulated timelines were to be issued ‘preferably’ within 30 days from the end of the financial year in which the information was received. They also clarified in intricate detail the nature of the information, and the circumstances of applicability of the guidelines, which while strengthening the process would also go a long way in reducing undue harassment of the assessee.
Further references to foreign jurisdictions were to be done within 21 days of initiation of the investigation, with follow-up references required to be done within 15 days of receipt of such information. And even where supplementary information was to be required by CBDT, this was to have been done within 15 days of receipt of such a request from CBDT. Even in this case, a safeguard was put in place stating that since the information received under tax treaties is for tax purposes, the same must not be shared with other agencies such as ED without specific permission from the jurisdiction from where the information was obtained.
The guidelines also laid down that for expeditious action, a show-cause notice was to be issued, before passing of assessment order, to the assessee within 30 days of receiving the information and completion of enquiry. Various other key process-related timelines and relevant safeguards were also put in place.
The circular issued recently when read with prior issued guidelines and notifications points to a serious attempt to expedite investigation and action in black money related cases. It also shows a degree of sensitivity towards preventing undue harassment of assessees through placing safeguards, defining timelines and laying out due process. This could go a long way in cleaning up the murky financial mess that black money has created, with substantive expedited outcomes serving as a strong deterrent to future offenders.
