2018 (5) TMI 1741 - HC - Income Tax

Validity of Section 139AA - Requirement of AADHAAR number in filing return of income and obtaining PAN - Failure to link Aadhaar with PAN - Held that - When Binoy Viswam (2017 (6) TMI 478 - SUPREME COURT OF IND) was decided the Court was conscious of the issue as to whether the fundamental right to privacy existed or otherwise was moot; the Larger Bench of the Judges is seized of the reference. Consciously therefore Binoy Viswam (supra) had not only upheld the validity of Section 139 AA of the Act but also added a note of caution that the consequences spelt out under Section 139AA(2) of the Act would not be presently visited with respect to those assesses who are not Aadhaar Card holders and do not comply with the mandate. The Five Judges (who were part of the Bench) merely reiterated those observations when the judgment was pronounced by the nine Judges. If the CBDT s circular dated 27.03.2018 is noticed in the background of these circumstances there is no room for doubt that the time for linking PAN with Aadhaar has been extended to June 2018 in its expressed term. The Court therefore sees no reason to vary its previous order. The returns filed by the petitioner shall be expedited and processed in accordance with law - returns filed by the petitioner shall be expedited and processed in accordance with law subject to the outcome of the decision in 2017 (8) TMI 938 - SUPREME COURT

Summary

Issues: Validity of Section 139AA of the Income Tax Act, 1961; Interpretation of Supreme Court judgments; Extending time for linking PAN with Aadhaar.

In this judgment by the Delhi High Court, the issue revolved around the validity of Section 139AA of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and the interpretation of relevant Supreme Court judgments. The court considered the context of the directions given by the Supreme Court in Binoy Viswam Vs. Union of India, which upheld the validity of Section 139AA of the Act. The court noted that the interim relief granted aligned with the larger Bench judgment by Nine Judges and the observations made by Five Judges in the case of Justice K.S.Puttaswamy (Retd) vs. Union of India. The Revenue argued that the CBDT's circular was compliant with Section 139AA of the Act.

The court acknowledged the submissions and highlighted that when Binoy Viswam was decided, the issue of the fundamental right to privacy was under consideration by a larger Bench of Judges. The court emphasized that the consequences under Section 139AA(2) of the Act would not apply immediately to assesses who are not Aadhaar Card holders and do not comply with the mandate. Considering the background of the judgments and the CBDT's circular dated 27.03.2018, which extended the time for linking PAN with Aadhaar until June 2018, the court found no reason to alter its previous order. The court directed that the petitioner's returns be processed in accordance with the law, subject to the outcome of connected matters.

Ultimately, the writ petitions were disposed of in the mentioned terms, and pending applications were also resolved. The court ordered dasti to the parties for necessary action. The judgment provided clarity on the interpretation of the law and the extension of the deadline for linking PAN with Aadhaar, ensuring compliance with legal requirements and judicial directions.