Saturday, March 29, 2014

Sec 139 A of I T Act - Its Implications ?


I/We hereby request that a permanent account number be ... The fee for processing PAN application is ... 57575 to obtain application status. For example Type ...
I/We hereby request that a permanent account number be allotted to me/us. ... coparceners on the date ofapplication and copy of any of the 49A.pdf
Online Application for New PAN (Form 49A) Guidelines (Please click here for Guidelines in Hindi language) (a) An applicant will fill Form 49A online and submit the ...
Through Internet: An application for new PAN can be made through Internet. After applying once requests forchanges or correction in PAN data or request for reprint ...

I/We hereby request that a permanent account number be allotted to me/us. ... PAN application. Documents should be in the name of applicant. List of documents which
I/We hereby request that a permanent account number be allotted to me/us. ... coparceners on the date ofapplication and copy of any of the 49A.pdf

< prev
Ref. Post @   Problem faced in having a PAN and/or TAN ..

(Edited / modified)

According to information from believed-to-be reliable sources, the Revenue is obstinately holding up/keep pending / in suspense , for long,  application (s) made for allotment of the ubiquitous Identification Numbers, for want of proof of ‘name’ of the  'association' formed by co-purchasers of apartments in Karnataka, mostly in Bangalore, not having itself 'registered' with the registering authority. Such a stance in withholding of the unique numbers, albeit that has been made a pre-requisite for certain purposes, is, in one's well considered view, highly objectionable. So far as could be seen, any demand by the authority to produce any such 'proof'' of ‘name’ or ‘registration’ is prima facie absurd, makes no legal sense; further, gravely offends the thing known as ‘common sense’. Hence, one strongly feels that deserves to be forcefully urged as not at all warranted by the law; that is, for more than one reason.

As per the definition in the IT Act, for its purposes, the term ‘person’ has a very wide meaning. In terms, it is an 'inclusive' definition, in that opens with the crucial words, "unless the context otherwise requires”. As defined,  'person', as defined, includes not only 'registered' entities; but includes/embraces within its ambit  many others, e.g. any unregistered body such as 'Hindu undivided family',  'unregistered firm' , body of 'individuals' ,  a body whether  'incorporated or not', so on.

Moreover, what is not to be ignored or over sighted is the special Explanation under section 2 (31), which reads thus:


Any person, not falling under sub-section (1) or sub-section (2), may apply to the Assessing Officer for the allotment of a permanent account number and, thereupon, the Assessing Officer shall allot a permanent account number to such person forthwith.      (Emphasis supplied)


The fact that the said Explanation, so also the other provisions, are couched in the widest terms/language possible, clearly goes to demonstrate , rather makes it more than explicit and crystal clear that the objective /intention behind is nothing else except to leave none but cover all conceivable kinds of  'person' . To dilate, that bears on its sleeves the intention/anxiety of the legislature  that none should be left out, leaving any scope for trying and getting out of the tax regime, for several purposes of the law.

Besides, the KAOA, to one's understanding, no where requires an AOA to have 'formally' registered itself with the KCSR in order to be recognised as a 'legal entity’? As such, the demand by the authority for a 'proof' of ‘registration’, to put it in the least offensive manner, calls for 'educating' the authority himself as to what exactly is 'the law'.

 This is an aspect, it requires to be noted, seems to be amply clear even on a plain reading of the relevant provisions of the KAOA. Also that may be found covered in the material in public domain, in the form of article(s) and other Posts.

Additionally, the obviously absurd stance of the empowered officer, if pursued, might, if questioned / agitated against, prove 'suicidal'; in that, as is imagined,  he  will then be required to personally explain why / how then a body of co-purchasers, -and any number of them, -though ‘registered’ but wrongly so under the inapplicable KSRA, has (ve) been granted the unique identity number(s), without his raising an eyebrow, or even a whisper or whimper from him.

Further, there is a strong indication for anyone to safely infer, it has not occurred to the authority that by withholding of the unique numbers, he renders himself solely liable/responsible /answerable for all the attendant consequences, flowing from  the deductor's  failure to withhold tax (TDS) or its payment .

Last but not least, the authority, if he withholds or fails to allot PAN "forthwith" , will be acting in contravention of the clear "mandate" of sub-section (3) of 139A of the IT Act quoted above. To put it differently, he will be exposing himself to "personal" action (civil as well as criminal) as impliedly envisaged by SECTION 293.

Notwithstanding that, in using a clumsy language, the legislature has, according to a critical perspective, exposed itself to the blemish of partiality and want of fair play. For an appreciation of why to say so, read, in comparison, the most stringent language used in those other provisions of the Act in dealing with defaults, failures, etc. on the part of any taxpayer.

In the context herein, the following need to be pertinently made a note of:

1. As per the recently reported SC Ruling, 'aadhaar' , the last of the innovations of the kind, though conceived of and issued in the name of, and though with the aim / for serving the purpose of establishing /evidencing /proving  own "identity" , denoted to be  "UNIQUE" by itself, that ought not to be made a mandatory requirement for every purpose; except, perhaps, for any purpose justifiable to be in the larger "public Interest",; i.e. for serving a social purpose,  to the people's benefit.

2. As held by courts in some decided cases, the designated authority for registration of documents (e.g. relating to transfer of immovable property) has no express or implied power , so as to refuse registration, for any extraneous reason / not directly connected; even if that concerns or affects the very  legal validity of the document  otherwise.

This, of course, is an aspect open to a debate, and calls for an independent deliberation. Even so, this may serve the purpose of  adding to the driving force in general; and for stressing that , in any view, by reason of the clear-cut mandate of section 139 (3) drawn attention to herein before.

3. A new avenue (in offing) hopefully for airing such grievances:

(If interested, may read posted comments)

Recommend, these obviously connected aspects might be kept in focus/ further explored, and made proper use of, so as to be of help in the context herein.

·         Login or register to post comments

Cross Refer (To Connect) >

Citizen Matters spoke to state advocate-general Ashok Haranahalli on the issue of 'gated communities'. Read the interview here



No comments:

Post a Comment