Black money law: No case for extending compliance window deadline, says Das

The Finance Ministry has ruled out any extension of the last date for declarations, which is September 30, allowed under the ‘compliance window’ in the new black money law.

The compliance window — which has been declared as a one time facility — allows declaration of unaccounted foreign assets along with payment of tax at rate of 60 per cent (30 per cent plus 30 per

cent penalty).

Beyond this date (September 30), any declaration of such foreign assets and income would attract tax rate of 120 per cent.

There is no reason why the timeline for the compliance window should be extended, Shaktikanta Das, Revenue Secretary, told reporters on the sidelines of a workshop on the black money law focused on unaccounted foreign income and assets.

This workshop on the Undisclosed Foreign Income & Assets (imposition of tax) Act 2015 was organised by the CA Institute, at the behest of the Revenue Secretary.

Speaking at the workshop, Central Board of Direct Taxes (CBDT) Chairperson Anita Kapur said that she had reservations over the current compliance window being described as a “short” one.

“If you are an offender, why do you need so much time to declare. We have already given three months to make this declaration,” she said. Kapur also said that the CBDT was open to issuing a second set of frequently asked questions on the black money law.

Meanwhile, Das asserted that “confidentiality” would be maintained on the information around the declarations made to the income tax department under the black money law.

“Let me make it very clear. There will be no misuse of the information made available to the income tax department. Only specified officers will have access to such information and not all in the department,” said Das. The ‘compliance window’ being provided under the black money law should not be seen as an amnesty scheme, he added. Stating that the black money law was a comprehensive, non-discriminatory and fair legislation, Das said that certain provisions were stringent as they are meant to be, considering the magnitude and depth of the problem.