The Income-tax authorities received information that the assessees with another related person were holding undisclosed foreign accounts in Singapore. Summons were issued under section 131 but the assessees denied the allegation. The Income-tax authorities entered into correspondence with foreign authorities. On the basis of information gathered from foreign sources a search was conducted in the residential and business premises of the assessees. Notice of reassessment was issued in March, 2016. While passing the reassessment order, reference was made to section 4(3) of the 2015 Act stating that the income included in the total undisclosed foreign income and assets under the 2015 Act would not form part of the total income under the Act. It was mentioned that the merits of that income had not been gone into and were left to be decided by the authorities under the 2015 Act. In December 2017 notice was issued to the assessees under the 2015 Act. On a writ petition challenging the notice , the Court held that  it was evident that prior to issuance of the notices dated December 20, 2017, the assessees were subjected to proceedings under the Act though the Income-tax proceedings were concluded on December 30, 2017 stating that issue relating to escaped income was left to be decided by the authorities under the 2015 Act. The Income-tax proceedings pertaining to the assessees were reopened following receipt of information in respect of undisclosed asset by the competent authority in terms of agreements entered into by the Central Government under section 90 or section 90A of the Act. On the basis of such information, search and seizure operations were carried out in the premises of the assessees under section 132 of the Act leading to issuance of notice under section 148 of the Act. The issue raised by the assessees that they were statutorily barred from making a declaration under section 59 of the 2015 Act was not an issue in the case of UOI v. Gautam Khaitan (. (2019) 110 taxmann.com 272 (SC)

 It was another matter that in the Income-tax proceedings the assessees had not disclosed any black money or asset ; rather they had denied it. In such circumstances and taking an overall view of the matter, the respondents could proceed pursuant to the notices dated December 20, 2017. However, no coercive measures could be taken against the assessees if the occasion so arose.( AY.2008-09, 2009-10)