#Aadhaar Mandatory For ITR From July 1, As SC Ordered Only Partial Relief: CBDT
The Central Board of Direct Taxes (CBDT) on Saturday has issued a clarification regarding the quoting of Aadhaar for filing IT Returns, on the basis of Supreme Court Judgment in the Binoy Viswam Case.
In a press release, the CBDT explained the effect of Supreme Court Judgment as follows;
(i) From July 1, 2017 onwards, every person eligible to obtain Aadhaar must quote their Aadhaar number or their Aadhaar Enrolment ID number for filing of Income Tax Returns as well as for applications for PAN;
(ii) Everyone who has been allotted permanent account number as on the 1st day of July, 2017, and who has Aadhaar number or is eligible to obtain Aadhaar number, shall intimate his Aadhaar number to income tax authorities for the purpose of linking PAN with Aadhaar;
(iii) However, for non-compliance of the above point No.(ii), only a partial relief by the Court has been given to those who do not have Aadhaar and who do not wish to obtain Aadhaar for the time being, that their PAN will not be cancelled so that other consequences under the Income Tax Act for failing to quote PAN may not arise.
In the Binoy Viswam Judgment Supreme Court on Friday upheld the constitutional validity of S.139AA of the Income Tax Act, subject to the outcome of the Constitution Bench’s decision in the main Aadhaar Matter.
In Binoy Viswam Case, the division bench held as follows;
“(i)We do not find any conflict between the provisions of Aadhaar Act and Section 139AA of the Income Tax Act inasmuch as when interpreted harmoniously, they operate in distinct fields.
(ii) Section 139AA of the Act is not discriminatory nor it offends equality clause enshrined in Article 14 of the Constitution. (iv) Section 139AA is also not violative of Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution insofar as it mandates giving of Aadhaar enrollment number for applying PAN cards in the income tax returns or notified Aadhaar enrollment number to the designated authorities. Further, proviso to sub-section (2) thereof has to be read down to mean that it would operate only prospective.
(iii) The validity of the provision upheld in the aforesaid manner is subject to passing the muster of Article 21 of the Constitution, which is the issue before the Constitution Bench in Writ Petition (Civil) No. 494 of 2012 and other connected matters. Till then, there shall remain a partial stay on the operation of proviso to sub-section (2) of Section 139AA of the Act, as described above.”