The Black Money Act is meant to be strict.
But even strict laws have limits.

The core issue

Can the tax department reopen a concluded assessment under the Black Money Act simply because it now holds a different view?

The Background

• A foreign trust was settled in 1990 by the assessee’s father, naming the assessee as a beneficiary,
• The assessee became aware of the trust post 2006,
• A voluntary disclosure under Section 59 was filed on enactment of the BM Act, declaring ₹8.55 crore,
• Assessment was completed under Section 10, accepting the disclosure.

What triggered revision

Years later, the Department invoked Section 23, alleging:

• Historical trust distributions prior to 2006,
• Undisclosed foreign assets and bank accounts,
• Assessment being erroneous and prejudicial to revenue.

The foundation? Trust minutes—without evidence of actual receipt.

What the Tribunal held

1. Section 23 is not a review power

Revision under Section 23 was initiated on the same material already considered.

Such action amounted to a mere change of opinion.

Section 23 does not permit review or re-appreciation of evidence.

2. No Error in the Original Assessment

• • The assessee categorically denied receipt of any trust distributions.
  • The issue was specifically examined during the original assessment.
  • The Assessing Officer took a conscious and plausible view after inquiry.

3. Absence of Corroborative Financial Evidence

• • The Department failed to produce bank statements or transaction trails.
  • No proof existed to show actual receipt or control by the assessee.
  • Allegations without financial evidence cannot sustain revision.

4. Trust Minutes Lacked Evidentiary Value

• • The minutes were recorded after the death of the settlor.
  • The assessee had no involvement in the alleged decisions.
  • Mere internal trust records cannot establish receipt of income.

Key Takeaways

• • Section 23 is not a review or reassessment provision.
  • Completed assessments cannot be revised on mere suspicion or change of opinion.
  • Discretionary trust beneficiaries are taxable only on real income.
  • Accepted disclosures under Section 59 attain finality.
  • Income or assets must be taxed in the correct assessment year.

Bottom line

The Black Money Act is a powerful law—but not an unlimited one.

Once disclosure is accepted and assessment is completed after due inquiry,
the chapter must close.

Law laid down for S.263 of IT Act on revision of assessment order equally applies to S.23 of BM Act as language of both the sections are pari materia.

This ruling sends a clear message:
Enforcement cannot replace evidence, and revision cannot replace review.

In the case of Shefali Chintan Parikh, ITAT Ahmedabad bench [BMA No. 2/Ahd/2025]