Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding
  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + HC Income Tax - 2018 (7) TMI HC This

  • Login
  • Cases Cited
  • Summary

Forgot password       New User/ Regiser

⇒ Register to get Live Demo



 

2018 (7) TMI 480 - HC - Income Tax


Issues Involved:
1. Validity of Rule 12(3) of the Income Tax Rules, 1961.
2. Requirement of Aadhar number for filing Income Tax returns.
3. Interim reliefs pending the final decision on the petition.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Validity of Rule 12(3) of the Income Tax Rules, 1961:
The petitioners challenged Rule 12(3) of the Income Tax Rules, 1961, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. They argued that the rule does not allow discretion to the authorities under the Income Tax Act, 1961, to accept Income Tax returns other than electronically. The petitioners claimed that they were unable to file their returns for the assessment year 2018-19 due to the lack of Aadhar cards or Aadhar enrollment numbers, which the electronic system mandated.

2. Requirement of Aadhar number for filing Income Tax returns:
The petitioners referred to a press release by the Central Board of Direct Taxes (CBDT) dated 27 March 2018, which extended the deadline for linking PAN with Aadhar from 31 March 2018 to 30 June 2018. They also cited interim orders from the Punjab and Haryana High Court and the Delhi High Court, which allowed the filing of returns without Aadhar linkage, provided they were filed before 30 June 2018. Despite these precedents, the petitioners faced issues with the electronic system not accepting returns without Aadhar numbers. An affidavit by petitioner No. 16 revealed that the system had accepted her return by generating an incorrect Aadhar number.

The respondents, represented by the Additional Solicitor General, argued that the linking of Aadhar with PAN is mandatory under Section 139AA of the Act. They cited the Supreme Court decisions in Binoy Viswam vs. Union of India and Justice K.S. Puttaswamy (Retd.) vs. Union of India, which upheld the validity of Section 139AA. They contended that incorrect concessions made by the state counsel in earlier cases could not bind the state, referencing the Supreme Court's decision in Central Council for Research in Ayurveda & Siddha vs. Dr. K. Santhakumari.

3. Interim reliefs pending the final decision on the petition:
The court noted that the orders from the Punjab and Haryana High Court and the Delhi High Court were based on the CBDT's press release and had not been challenged or varied by the state. The court emphasized that the state must apply the law equally and cannot adopt a selective approach. It directed the state to ensure that the petitioners' Income Tax returns for the assessment year 2018-19 be accepted without Aadhar linkage if filed before 30 June 2018. If the electronic system failed to accept the returns, the petitioners were permitted to file them in physical form with the jurisdictional Assessing Officer by 2 July 2018.

Conclusion:
The court granted interim relief to the petitioners, allowing them to file their returns without Aadhar linkage, pending the final hearing on 17 July 2018. The court's order was limited to the petitioners and did not prejudice the state's rights and contentions regarding the mandatory nature of Aadhar linkage under the Act.

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates