9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2018 (1) TMI 279 - HC - Income TaxRequirement of AADHAAR number in filing return of income - petitioner seeking permission to file his income tax returns 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 - The prayer sought for in this writ petition is squarely covered by the earlier decision of this Court in the case of Thiagarajan Kumararaja vs. Union of India 2017 (11) TMI 584 - MADRAS HIGH COURT 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.
Issues:
Interpretation of Section 139AA of the Income Tax Act - Compulsory requirement of Aadhaar number for income tax assessees. Analysis: The High Court of Madras, in a judgment delivered by T. S. Sivagnanam, J., addressed the interpretation of Section 139AA of the Income Tax Act regarding the compulsory requirement of Aadhaar number for income tax assessees. The court noted that the enrollment under Aadhaar is voluntary, but Section 139AA makes it mandatory for assessees to provide their Aadhaar number for income tax purposes. The court referred to the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Binoy Viswam, which upheld the validity of Section 139AA and emphasized the importance of Aadhaar in curbing black money and tax evasion. The court further analyzed the two parts of Section 139AA: the requirement to quote Aadhaar number and the consequences of failing to intimate Aadhaar number to the prescribed authority. It was held that the provision does not violate Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution as it does not impinge upon the right to carry on a profession or trade. The court highlighted the significance of PAN in various transactions and observed that the withdrawal or nullification of PAN could restrict the right to do business. Regarding the reasonableness of the restrictions imposed by Section 139AA, the court referred to the objectives of the provision, such as de-duplicating PAN cards and preventing the issuance of multiple PANs in fictitious names. The court emphasized the necessity of consequences for non-compliance with Section 139AA to ensure the effectiveness of the provision. The court partially stayed the proviso to Sub-Section (2) of Section 139AA until further consideration by a Constitution Bench on the aspect of Article 21 of the Constitution, including the Right to Privacy. In conclusion, the court dismissed the writ petition, stating that there were no grounds to grant the relief sought by the petitioner. The judgment clarified that the partial stay granted by the Supreme Court would only apply to facilitate transactions requiring PAN quoting as per Rule 114B of the Rules. The writ petition was dismissed without costs, and connected miscellaneous petitions were closed.
|
