You are here: Home » Economy & Policy » News
Business Standard

Aadhaar necessary to file I-T returns: Madras HC rejects exemption plea

Madras HC mandates linkage of Aadhaar with I-T returns, rejects plea seeking exemption

Press Trust of India  |  Chennai 

Govt, state depts  expose personal data of millions of Indians

The Madras High Court has said that the number is necessary to file returns and dismissed a plea seeking exemption from quoting it, a week after it allowed a woman to file her without mentioning it.

Petitioner Thiagarajan Kumararaja sought a direction for permitting him to file his for the assessment year 2017-18 either manually or through the appropriate e-filing facility without insisting on quoting the number.


The order comes a week after the same judge - T S Sivagnanam - allowed the woman to file her without quoting the number or enrolment number.

The judge had passed the interim order on a plea by Preethi Mohan.

The woman's counsel had move the court relying on a Supreme Court ruling in a case in which it had imposed a partial stay on the operation of Section 139AA of the Act, which mandates linkage of with

Citing the supreme court order in the Binoy Viswam vs Union of India case, Justice Sivagnanam, who dismissed the petition yesterday, said the apex court had rejected the contention that since enrolment under the Act is voluntary, it cannot be made compulsory under the Act.

The judge said on a reading of the judgement rendered in the case, it would clearly show that the apex court has not stayed the "proviso to sub-section (2) of Section 139AA of the Act" and the partial stay would be applicable only to facilitate the other transactions, which are mentioned in rule 114B, where PAN is to be quoted in all documents.

"Therefore, to state that the partial stay granted by the Hon'ble Supreme Court would endure to the benefit of the petitioner even for filing returns is a plea, which is not sustainable and is liable to be rejected," the judge said.

The judge said it has also been held that the purpose behind the Act namely the Act, 1961 is entirely different, the purpose being to curb black money, money laundering and tax evasion, among others.

It has been further held that for achieving such objects if parliament chooses to make the provision mandatory under the Act, the competence of parliament cannot be questioned: "on the ground that it is impermissible only because under the Act, the provision is a directory in nature."

The apex court also held that it is the prerogative of Parliament to make a particular provision directory in one statute and mandatory/compulsory in the other and that by itself cannot be a ground to question the competence of the legislature, the judge said.

On October 31, the court had issued an interim direction to the I-T department to permit the woman to file her returns for the assessment year 2017-18 either manually or through appropriate e-filing facility without insisting for number. It also posted the matter to December 18 for the I-T department to file its counter.

First Published: Wed, November 08 2017. 09:54 IST
RECOMMENDED FOR YOU