Supreme Court limits Black Money Act retrospective penalties, focuses on asset value and compliance, not retroactive punishment.

The Supreme Court clarified that the retrospective application of the Black Money Act was limited to facilitating the one-time opportunity under Section 59, not extending penal provisions. Legislative intent was interpreted to tax undisclosed foreign assets based on their value in the immediate previous year. The deadline for asset declaration was set to aid compliance, not apply penalties retroactively. Penal provisions under Sections 50 and 51 apply when assets are not declared under Section 59. The Supreme Court overturned the High Court's interim order, directing a fresh review on merits without retrospective penal application.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Retrospective application of the Black Money Act.
2. Legislative intent and interpretation of Section 3 and Section 2(9)(d) of the Black Money Act.
3. Opportunity for declaration under Section 59 of the Black Money Act.
4. Penal provisions under Sections 50 and 51 of the Black Money Act.
5. Validity of the interim order passed by the High Court.

Issue-Wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Retrospective Application of the Black Money Act:
The core question was whether the High Court was correct in observing that the Central Government made the Black Money Act retrospectively applicable from 01.07.2015 through the exercise of powers under Sections 85 and 86. The Supreme Court clarified that the date 01.07.2015 was substituted for 01.04.2016 in subsection (3) of Section 1 to enable assessees to take advantage of the one-time opportunity under Section 59. This substitution was necessary to remove anomalies and did not make the penal provisions retrospectively applicable.

2. Legislative Intent and Interpretation of Section 3 and Section 2(9)(d) of the Black Money Act:
Section 3, the charging section, imposes a tax on undisclosed foreign income and assets from the assessment year commencing on 01.04.2016. The proviso to subsection (1) of Section 3 specifies that undisclosed assets located outside India are taxed based on their value in the previous year when they come to the notice of the Assessing Officer. Section 2(9)(d) defines the "previous year" as the twelve months commencing on the 1st day of April of the relevant year preceding the assessment year. This interpretation ensures that the tax is levied on the value of the asset in the immediate previous year.

3. Opportunity for Declaration under Section 59 of the Black Money Act:
Section 59 allows assessees to declare undisclosed assets acquired from taxable income for any assessment year before 01.04.2016. The Central Government notified 30.09.2015 as the deadline for declarations and 31.12.2015 for payment of tax and penalty. This provision aimed to give a one-time opportunity to assessees to comply with the law. The change of date to 01.07.2015 was to facilitate this declaration process and not to apply penal provisions retrospectively.

4. Penal Provisions under Sections 50 and 51 of the Black Money Act:
Section 50 prescribes punishment for failure to disclose foreign assets in the income return, with imprisonment ranging from six months to seven years and a fine. Section 51 deals with the wilful attempt to evade tax, penalty, or interest, with imprisonment from three years to ten years and a fine. These sections apply only when an assessee fails to declare assets under Section 59 and does not pay the tax and penalty.

5. Validity of the Interim Order Passed by the High Court:
The Supreme Court found the High Court's interim order unsustainable, as it incorrectly held that the notification/order made penal provisions retrospectively applicable. The assessment year in question was 2019-2020, with the previous year ending on 31.03.2019. The Supreme Court quashed the interim order and requested the High Court to decide the writ petition on its merits, uninfluenced by the observations made in this judgment.

Conclusion:
The appeal was allowed, and the interim order passed by the High Court was set aside. The High Court was directed to decide the writ petition based on its merits. The Supreme Court's observations were made solely for examining the correctness of the interim order and should not influence the High Court's final decision.

---