Top-up
< 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.
Cross Refer (To Connect) >
< 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:
Q
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)
UQ
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.
Citizen Matters spoke to state advocate-general Ashok Haranahalli on the issue
of 'gated communities'. Read the interview here
No comments:
Post a Comment