On appeal, the Tribunal held that the non obstante clause contained in the machinery provision of S. 206AA of the Act has to be assigned restrictive meaning and cannot be read so as to override beneficial provisions of DTAAs, which override even the charging provisions of the Act by virtue of S. 90(2) of the Act. Therefore, an assessee cannot be held liable to deduct tax at higher rates prescribed in S. 206AA of the Act for payments made to non-residents having taxable income in India in spite of their failure to furnish PAN. (AY.2010-11)
ACIT v. Wipro Ltd. (2020) 78 ITR 70 (SN)(Bang)(Trib)
S. 206AA : Requirement to furnish Permanent Account Number (PAN) – Provision for deduction at higher rate where recipient fails to provide PAN — Provision cannot override beneficial provisions of DTAAs — Assessee not liable to deduct tax at higher rates in spite of failure by non-resident to furnish PAN [ S.90(2)]