ET OnlineAI generated representative image
The Finance Bill, 2026 proposes several reforms aimed at encouraging voluntary compliance—including expanding the scope of updated returns and rationalising penal consequences for small taxpayers disclosing foreign assets and income under the Foreign Assets of Small Taxpayers Disclosure Scheme, 2026.
Income Tax Guide
Income Tax Union Budget FY 2026-27 LiveIncome Tax Slabs FY 2025-26Income Tax Calculator 2025
The updated return mechanism was first introduced through Section 139(8A) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 by the Finance Act, 2022, allowing taxpayers to file an updated return within 24 months from the end of the relevant assessment year. The time limit was subsequently extended to 48 months by the Finance Act, 2025 (effective 1 April 2025), subject to payment of additional tax ranging from 25% to 70% of the aggregate of tax and interest payable under Section 140B.
From 1 April 2026, the framework is incorporated in Section 263(6)(a) of the Income-tax Act, 2025, with additional tax payable under Section 267.
However, a serious legislative gap has emerged between the updated return regime under the Income-Tax Act and the Black Money (Undisclosed Foreign Income and Assets) and Imposition of Tax Act, 2015 (“Black Money Act”). If left unaddressed, even taxpayers who voluntarily disclose foreign income through a valid updated return and pay the applicable additional tax could still face 30% tax and 300% penalty and prosecution under the Black Money Act.
What the updated return provisions allow
Under Section 139(8A) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 and Section 263(6)(a) of the Income-tax Act, 2025, a taxpayer may file an updated return within 48 months, subject to prescribed conditions and payment of additional tax—irrespective of whether a return was originally filed within the due date, filed belatedly, revised, or not filed at all.
However, these provisions bar the filing of an updated return where, for the relevant assessment year (or tax year), the Assessing Officer:
- possesses information under the Black Money Act; or
- has received information under tax treaties or exchange agreements referred to in Sections 90 or 90A of the 1961 Act, or Section 157 of the 2025 Act,
- and such information has been communicated to the taxpayer before the updated return is filed.
The key trigger is communication.
Even if the department possesses information, the taxpayer remains eligible to file an updated return so long as it has not been formally communicated by the Assessing Officer prior to filing. In essence, the framework encourages voluntary disclosure before departmental action—albeit at the cost of additional tax.
Where the contradiction begins
The difficulty arises from Section 4 of the Black Money Act.
Section 4 defines “undisclosed foreign income” as income from a source outside India that was not disclosed in a return furnished within the time allowed under Section 139(1), 139(4) or 139(5) of the Income-tax Act, 1961.
Two glaring gaps emerge:
- When Section 139(8A) was introduced in 2022 to permit updated returns, Section 4 of the Black Money Act was not amended to recognise such returns.
- With the replacement of Section 139 by Section 263 under the Income-tax Act, 2025 (effective 1 April 2026), corresponding amendments have still not been proposed in the Finance Bill, 2026.
As a result, the Black Money Act continues to exclude from the definition of “undisclosed foreign income” only those disclosures made in returns filed under Sections 139(1), (4) and (5) of the 1961 Act—while remaining silent on income disclosed through updated returns.
The practical impact: An illustration
A taxpayer failed to disclose foreign income in the return filed under Section 139(1) for AY 2021–22.
No notice or communication has been issued by the Assessing Officer regarding such undisclosed foreign income.
Beyond 36 months but within the 48-month window, the taxpayer files an updated return under Section 139(8A) and pays 70% additional tax (on the aggregate of tax and interest) under Section 140B.
Under the Income-tax Act, 1961, the disclosure is valid.
However, under Section 4 of the Black Money Act:
- The income was not disclosed within the timelines prescribed under Sections 139(1), 139(4), or 139(5) of the Income-tax Act, 1961.
- It technically qualifies as “undisclosed foreign income.”
- Tax is leviable at 30% under Section 3.
- Penalty under Section 41 — 300% of the tax — may apply.
- Prosecution under Section 51—rigorous imprisonment of 3 to 7 years, along with a fine—may follow.
In effect, despite paying 70% additional tax under the updated return scheme, the taxpayer may still face 30% tax under the Black Money Act, a 300% penalty, and criminal prosecution. Such an outcome fundamentally undermines the objective of the updated return framework.
Why this gap exists
The anomaly traces back to 2022, when Section 139(8A) was introduced into the Income-tax Act, 1961 to enable the filing of updated returns. However, no corresponding amendment was made to Section 4 of the Black Money Act to recognise such disclosures.
The misalignment has continued even after the enactment of the Income-tax Act, 2025, which replaces Section 139 with Section 263 from 1 April 2026. The necessary consequential amendments and cross-referencing adjustments have still not been carried into the Black Money Act.
In essence, the inconsistency does not appear to be a matter of policy intent, but one of legislative harmonisation — a drafting gap that has persisted through successive rounds of tax reform.
Policy objectives at risk
The updated return scheme was introduced with clear objectives:
- To encourage voluntary compliance
- To provide a final opportunity to correct omissions
- To reduce prolonged litigation
- To increase revenue without costly enforcement action
However, in cases involving foreign income, the current drafting creates uncertainty and disproportionate risk.
A taxpayer who voluntarily discloses income and pays substantial additional tax may still face harsher consequences than one who waits for detection and contests the matter through litigation. Such an outcome weakens the credibility of the reform and sends the wrong compliance signal.
What needs to be done
Before the Finance Bill, 2026 is enacted, the government should amend Section 4 of the Black Money Act, 2015 retrospectively from 1 April 2022 to clarify that “undisclosed foreign income” means income from a source outside India that is not disclosed in a return furnished within the time allowed under Sections 139(1), 139(4), 139(5), or 139(8A) of the Income-tax Act, 1961.
Such amendment should be subject to an express safeguard that the updated return under Section 139(8A) has not been filed after information under the Black Money Act, or information received under Sections 90 or 90A of the Income-tax Act, 1961, has been communicated by the Assessing Officer to the taxpayer, and that the updated return is otherwise valid in terms of Section 139(8A).
Further, with effect from 1 April 2026, consequential amendments should align the Black Money Act with the Income-tax Act, 2025 by expressly providing that income disclosed in returns filed under Sections 263(1), 263(4), 263(5), or 263(6)(a) shall not form part of “undisclosed foreign income,” subject to similar safeguards.
In the absence of such amendment, foreign income disclosed through a valid updated return may continue to fall within the mischief of Section 4 on a plain reading of the statute. A simple harmonising amendment would restore legislative coherence and ensure that voluntary disclosure mechanisms function as intended.
Voluntary disclosure must mean legal certainty
The updated return framework under the Income-tax Act is designed to encourage taxpayers to correct omissions by paying substantial additional tax within a defined statutory window. It reflects a policy shift toward voluntary compliance over coercive enforcement.
However, due to what appears to be an unintended drafting gap, the Black Money Act may still treat the very same disclosed foreign income as liable to separate tax, a 300% penalty, and even prosecution.
If the Finance Bill, 2026 does not harmonise these provisions, voluntary disclosure of foreign income could carry unintended and disproportionate consequences rather than function as a meaningful compliance mechanism.
A focused clarificatory amendment would restore legal certainty, reinforce taxpayer confidence in the compliance framework, and ensure that India’s reform agenda promotes transparency without inadvertently creating a penal trap.
________________________________________
The author, O.P. Yadav is the Former Principal Commissioner of Income Tax & Tax Evangelist, Prosperr.io. The views expressed are personal.
aniltikotekar4sme.com 