ss.48 to 58, BMA 2015 — Offences and prosecution under the Black Money Act
Rigorous imprisonment of up to seven years for a reporting failure and up to ten years for wilful evasion, with a presumed culpable mental state.
Sections 49 and 50 carry a twenty lakh rupee threshold inserted by section 160 of the Finance Act 2026, retrospectively from 1 October 2024, which excludes immovable property. Sections 51 to 53 carry no threshold.
Income-tax Act, 1961
ss.48 to 58, BMA 2015
Income-tax Act, 2025
Unaffected; offences chapter of the 2015 Act
In force from 1 April 2026, but s.536(2)(c) preserves the 1961 Act for tax years beginning before that date.
In short
Chapter V of the Black Money Act creates offences that stand on their own feet. Section 49 punishes wilful failure to furnish the return, and section 50 wilful failure to furnish information about a foreign asset in a return that was filed, each with rigorous imprisonment of not less than six months and up to seven years, and with fine. Section 51 punishes a wilful attempt to evade tax, penalty or interest with three to ten years, with a lesser offence for evading payment. Sections 52 and 53 punish false verification and abetment. Section 54 presumes a culpable mental state and puts the burden on the accused to disprove it beyond reasonable doubt. Section 55 requires sanction of the Principal Commissioner, Commissioner or Commissioner (Appeals). Section 56 treats an unincorporated body and a Hindu undivided family as a company. Critically, section 48(2) provides that the chapter is independent of any order under the Act that may be made or has not been made, and that it is no defence that an order was not made because of limitation or any other reason. The Act contains no power to compound, and section 84 does not import section 279, section 279A or section 280C of the Income-tax Act.
What the provision does
Creates the offences, fixes the punishments, presumes the mental element, requires sanction, and declares the chapter independent of any assessment.
Threshold questions
- Was sanction obtained under section 55 from the correct authority
- Does the aggregate value of the assets, excluding immovable property, exceed twenty lakh rupees for sections 49 and 50
- Was the failure relied on a failure in a return filed after the Act commenced
- If the assessment has been set aside, was that on the merits or on a technical or jurisdictional ground
- Is the element of wilfulness made out, given the presumption in section 54
In practice
The recurring disputes.
Whether prosecution survives a quashed assessment
Section 48(2) declares the chapter independent of any order under the Act. No decision under this Act has tested it. On Radheshyam Kejriwal v. State of West Bengal (2011) 3 SCC 581 and K.C. Builders v. ACIT (2004) 265 ITR 562, an exoneration on the merits should end the prosecution while a technical or jurisdictional exoneration will not.
Prosecution for a pre-commencement return
The Calcutta High Court allowed prosecution in Shrivardhan Mohta, where the failure was in returns filed after commencement. The Karnataka High Court quashed prosecutions founded on returns for AY 2007-08 and 2009-10 in Dhanashree Ravindra Pandit on Article 20(1). The Supreme Court granted leave and stayed that finding on 23 August 2024. The decisions are reconcilable on whether the default was completed before or after commencement.
Section 71 is not a general immunity
Section 71 excludes certain persons and assets from Chapter VI, the declaration window. The Calcutta High Court held in Mohta that the bar operates only on that chapter, so a prosecution under Chapter V remains available even where proceedings under the Income-tax Act are pending.