A Kowsalya Bai vs. UOI (Karnataka High Court)

DATE: (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: June 18, 2012 (Date of publication)

Click here to download the judgement (kowsalya_206AA_PAN_TDS_read_down.pdf)

S. 206AA PAN law read down to not apply to assessees without taxable income

The assessee, whose income was below taxable limit, filed Form 15G and requested that no TDS be deducted on the interest on fixed deposit. However, she was informed that in view of s. 206AA inserted by FA 2009, TDS would have to be deducted in the absence of PAN. The assessee filed a writ petition to challenge s. 206AA as being arbitrary and unconstitutional to the extent that it compelled persons with no taxable income to obtain a PAN. HELD upholding the challenge:

U/s 139A, only persons whose income is chargeable to tax are required to obtain a PAN. However, s. 206AA compels even persons without a taxable income to obtain a PAN to avoid TDS. This creates difficulty for poor and illiterate persons who make small investments and discourages them to invest money. S. 206AA runs counter to s. 139A and is discriminatory. Though the Legislature’s intention is to bring maximum persons under the income-tax net, it may not insist that even persons whose income is below the taxable limit have to compulsorily obtain a PAN. If any tax avoidance is detected, that can be taken care of by penal provisions. Accordingly, s.206AA is read down as being inapplicable to persons whose income is less than the taxable limit. Banks & financial institutions should not insist upon PAN from such small investors. It continues to apply to persons whose income is above the taxable limit.

One comment on “A Kowsalya Bai vs. UOI (Karnataka High Court)
  1. vswami says:

    The view the Kar HC has taken, rightly so, may be related back to the strong reaction aired against the SEBI ‘s directives mandating PAN requirement for all demat account holders, including non-tax-payers, way back in year 2006; read articles,- (2006) 6 CAT 565 and (2006) 7 CAT 64. Needs to be specially noted that, SEBI did so, in a cavalier fashion, notwithstanding that at that pint in time section 206 AA itself was not on the statute.

Discover more from itatonline.org

Subscribe now to keep reading and get access to the full archive.

Continue reading