2017 (11) TMI 584 - HC - Income Tax

Requirement of AADHAAR number in filing return of income - petitioner seeking permission to file his income tax returns AY 2017-18 either manually or through appropriate e-filing facility without insisting the petitioner to produce his aadhaar card and/or enrollment ID as defined under Section 139AA - Constitutional validity of Section 139AA - Held that - After rendering the above finding, it was observed that though the PAN is issued under the provisions of Section 139A of the Act, its function is not limited to giving this number in the income tax returns or for other acts to be performed under the Act as mentioned in Sub-Sections (5), (5A), (5B), 5(C), 5(D) and (6) of Section 139A. It was further observed that Rule 114B of the Rules mandates quoting of this PAN in various other documents pertaining to different kinds of transactions listed therein. It was also observed that for doing many activities of day to day nature, including in the course of business, the PAN is to be given and in the absence of a PAN, it will be impossible to undertake any of the activities, though its requirement is aimed at curbing the tax evasion. It was further observed that if the PAN of a person is withdrawn or is nullified, it definitely amounts to placing restrictions on the right to do business. On a reading of the quoted paragraphs in the decision in the case of Binoy Viswam, 2017 (6) TMI 478 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA it would clearly show that the Hon ble Supreme Court has not stayed the Proviso to Sub-Section (2) of Section 139AA of the Act and the partial stay would be applicable only to facilitate the other transactions, which are mentioned in Rule 114B of the Rules, which pertains to transactions, in relation to which, PAN is to be quoted in all documents for the purpose of Clause (C) of Sub-Section (5) of Section 139A of the Act. Therefore, to state that the partial stay granted by the Hon ble Supreme Court would enure to the benefit of the petitioner even for filing income tax returns is a plea, which is not sustainable and is liable to be rejected.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Requirement for Aadhaar number/card or enrollment identity for filing income tax returns.
2. Interpretation and application of the Supreme Court's decision in Binoy Viswam vs. Union of India.
3. Validity and enforcement of Section 139AA of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
4. Impact of non-compliance with Section 139AA on the validity of PAN cards.
5. Judicial discretion in granting interim relief for filing income tax returns without Aadhaar.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Requirement for Aadhaar number/card or enrollment identity for filing income tax returns:
The petitioner sought a direction to file income tax returns for the assessment year 2017-18 manually or through e-filing without producing an Aadhaar number or enrollment ID, as mandated by Section 139AA of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The petitioner referenced an interim order granted in a similar case, arguing that the requirement infringes on their rights.

2. Interpretation and application of the Supreme Court's decision in Binoy Viswam vs. Union of India:
The petitioner’s case relied heavily on the Supreme Court's decision in Binoy Viswam vs. Union of India, where it was held that the PAN cards of assessees who do not have an Aadhaar card and do not comply with Section 139AA(2) cannot be treated as invalid until the larger challenge to the Aadhaar Act is resolved by the Constitution Bench. The petitioner argued that this decision implies that they should be allowed to file returns without quoting an Aadhaar number.

3. Validity and enforcement of Section 139AA of the Income Tax Act, 1961:
The court noted that the Supreme Court in Binoy Viswam upheld the validity of Section 139AA, which mandates quoting Aadhaar for income tax purposes. The court emphasized that while Aadhaar enrollment is voluntary under the Aadhaar Act, it is compulsory under the Income Tax Act for assessees, aiming to curb black money, money laundering, and tax evasion.

4. Impact of non-compliance with Section 139AA on the validity of PAN cards:
The court highlighted that the Supreme Court had bifurcated Section 139AA into two parts: the requirement to quote Aadhaar and the consequences of failure to do so. The Supreme Court maintained that the provision is within the Parliament's competence and does not violate Articles 14 or 19(1)(g) of the Constitution. However, the court noted that the partial stay granted by the Supreme Court was limited to facilitating other transactions under Rule 114B of the Income Tax Rules, not for filing income tax returns.

5. Judicial discretion in granting interim relief for filing income tax returns without Aadhaar:
The court observed that the Supreme Court did not stay the proviso to Section 139AA(2) and that the partial stay was solely to facilitate transactions listed in Rule 114B. Consequently, the court found that the petitioner’s plea for interim relief to file returns without Aadhaar was unsustainable.

Conclusion:
The court concluded that the petitioner misinterpreted the Supreme Court's decision in Binoy Viswam. The partial stay granted by the Supreme Court was restricted to transactions under Rule 114B and did not extend to the filing of income tax returns. Therefore, the court dismissed the writ petition, finding no grounds to grant the relief sought by the petitioner.