Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 9, Cited by 0]

Karnataka High Court

Ashish Gajanan Asgekar vs Union Of India on 10 March, 2023

Author: B M Shyam Prasad

Bench: B M Shyam Prasad

                                          -1-
                                                    WP No. 14383 of 2019




                  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

                    DATED THIS THE 10TH DAY OF MARCH, 2023

                                    BEFORE

                    THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE B M SHYAM PRASAD

                     WRIT PETITION NO. 14383 OF 2019 (T-IT)

            BETWEEN:
            1.   ASHISH GAJANAN ASGEKAR,
                 AGED 46 YEARS,
                 #236, 5TH MAIN, 6TH BLOCK,
                 BEL LAYOUT, VIDYARANYAPURA,
                 BENGALURU-560097.
            2.   PAVITHRA SANKARAN,
                 AGED 38 YEARS,
                 3076/5, 4TH CROSS,
                 GOKULAM PARK,
                 MYSORE-570002.

            3.   THEJESH GANGAIAH NAGARATHNA,
                 AGED 38 YEARS,
                 NO.699, BEHIND SUVIDYA COLLEGE,
                 KAMMASANDRA,
Digitally        BANGALORE-560100.
signed by
NARASIMHA
MURTHY      4.   KIRAN JONNALAGADDA,
VANAMALA
Location:        AGED 34 YEARS,
HIGH             NO.141/142, 2ND CROSS, PAI LAYOUT,
COURT OF
KARNATAKA        HULIMAVU GATE, BANNERGHATTA ROAD,
                 BANGALORE-560076.

                                                    ...PETITIONERS
            (BY SRI. MOHAMMAD AFEEF, ADVOCATE FOR
             SMT. SIDDI SAVITHA A., ADVOCATES)
                           -2-
                                   WP No. 14383 of 2019




AND:


1.   UNION OF INDIA,
     MINISTRY OF FINACE,
     NORTH BLOCK,
     NEW DLEHI-11001.
     REPRESENTED BY SECREARY (REVENUE)

2.   CENTRAL BOARD OF DIRECT TAXES (CBDT)
     MINISTRY OF FINANCE, NORTH BLOCK
     NEW DELHI-110001
     REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN.

                                 ...RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI. SHANTHI BHUSHAN, ASG FOR R-1;
SRI. K.V. ARAVIND, ADVOCATE FOR R-2)

      THIS WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND
227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA FILED PRAYING
TO SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED
30.6.2018 ISSUED UNDER SEC.119 OF THE INCOME
TAX ACT, 1961 BY THE RESPONDENT 2 HEREIN
MANDATING LINKING OF PAN WITH AADHAAR BY 31ST
MARCH, 2019 [PLACED AS ANNEXURE-A]; DIRECT THE
RESPONDENTS HEREIN TO REFRAIN FROM INITIATING
ADVERSE ACTION UNDER S.139AA[2] AND THE
PROVISO TO S.139AA[2] OF THE INCOME TAX ACT,
1961 READ WITH THE IMPUGNED NOTICE, FOR NON-
LINKAGE     OF    PAN  WITH    AADHAAR;    DIRECT
RESPONDENTS HEREIN TO COMPLY WITH THE
DIRECTION ISSUED BY THE HON'BLE SUPREME
COURT OF INDIA IN JUDGEMENTS DATED 24.8.2017
AND    26.9.2018.   IN THE   CASE    OF   JUSTICE
K.S.PUTTUSWAMY [RETD.] AND ANR. V. UNION OF
INDIA AND ORS. [W.P.[CIVIL] NO.494/2012] PRIOR TO
MAKING IT MANDATORY TO LINK PAN WITH AADHAAR.

     THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY
HEARING IN B GROUP, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE
THE FOLLOWING:
                                       -3-
                                                  WP No. 14383 of 2019




                             ORDER

The petitioners have filed this petition for the following reliefs:

"1. For quashing the Impugned Order dated 30.06.2018 issued under s.119 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, by the Respondent No.2 herein mandating linking of PAN with Aadhaar by 31st March 2019 (placed as Annexure - A).

2. For directions to the Respondents to refrain from initiating adverse action under s.139AA(2) and the proviso to s.139AA(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, read with the Impugned Notice, for non- linkage of PAN with Aadhaar

3. For directions Respondents to comply with the direction issued by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in judgments dated 24.08.2017, and 26.09.2018, In the case of Justice K.S. Puttuswamy (Retd.) and Anr. v. Union of India &Ors. (W.P. (Civil) No. 494 of 2012) prior to making it mandatory to link PAN with Aadhaar".

2. The petitioners' essential grievance, and the reason for the reliefs as aforesaid, is that the apprehension that the Revenue will insist upon linking of Aadhaar card with the PAN card under the provisions of Section 139AA of the Income Tax Act, -4- WP No. 14383 of 2019 1961 [for short, 'IT Act'] notwithstanding certain directions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Justice K.S.Puttuswamy (Retd.) and Anr v. Union of India and Ors reported in AIR 2017 SCC OnLine SC 1462.

3. Sri. Mohammad Afeef, the learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that this Court could dispose of the petition with directions as contained in the decision of a Division Bench of the High Court of Gujarat in Special Civil Application No.17329/2017, and the directions referred to by him read as below:

"It is ordered that PAN of the applicant shall not be declared inoperative and the applicant would not be in default in any proceedings only for the reason that the permanent account number is not linked with Aadhaar or Aadhaar number is not quoted and the applicant shall not be subjected to the provsio to sub-section (2) of section 139AA of the Act till the judgment of the Supreme Court in the Rojer Mathew v. South Indian Bank Ltd. and others in Civil Application NO.
-5- WP No. 14383 of 2019
8588 of 2019 is delivered and available. Rule is made absolute accordingly to the aforesaid extent."

4. Sri K.V.Aravind, the learned counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, submits that during the pendency of this petition, Rule 114AAA is inserted in Income Tax Rules 1962 with effect from 13.02.2020. In terms of this Rule, in effect the last date for linking the Aadhaar card as contemplated under sub-Section (2) of Section 139AA of the IT Act is notified as 31.03.2020. However, by appropriate circulars this last date has been extended from time to time. The recent order in this regard is on 30.03.2022 in Order F.No.370142/14/2020 and in terms of this order, the last date is now extended up to 01.04.2023. As such, there is no reason for any apprehension.

5. When queried, Sri.K.V.Aravind submits that the circulars could be issued because the second decision in the case of Justice K.S. Puttuswamy -6- WP No. 14383 of 2019 supra is referred to a larger bench in Rojer Mathew v. South Indian Bank Limited and there could be possible extension even for the period beyond 01.04.2023. In fact, Sri K.V.Aravind submits that the petition could be disposed of reserving liberty to the petitioners to file a fresh petition in the event there is no order for extending the timeline beyond 01.04.2023.

6. On a careful consideration of these submissions, and because this Court could reasonably opine that with the subsequent events, the petitioners' apprehension that there would be inconsistence on the requirement of informing the Aadhaar number for filing returns is vastly addressed, the petition must be disposed of with necessary liberty in the event there is no extension for the period beyond 01.04.2023. As such, the petition stands disposed of with liberty to the petitioner to file fresh petition in the event there is no -7- WP No. 14383 of 2019 extension of time for furnishing the Aadhaar card beyond 01.04.2023.

SD/-

JUDGE SA ct:sr