Allowing the petition the Court held that , when the Supreme Court decided the case of Binoy viswam v. UOI ( 2017) 396 ITR 66 (SC) the court was conscious that the issue as to whether the fundamental right to privacy existed or otherwise was moot. The larger Bench of the Supreme Court was seized of the reference. Consciously, therefore, the decision had not only upheld the validity of section 139AA but also added a note of caution that the consequences spelt out under section 139AA(2) would not be presently visited with respect to those assessees who were not Aadhaar card holders and did not comply with the mandate. If the Board’s Circular dated March 27, 2018 ([2018] 403 ITR (St.) 312) was noticed in the background of those circumstances, the time for linking permanent account number with Aadhaar had been extended to June 2018 in express terms and therefore, there was no reason to vary the previous order. The returns filed by the assessees should be processed accordingly. ( WP No. 3212 of 2018 dt. 14-05 -2018 ( AY. 2018-19) (Also refer Mukul Talwar. v. UOI ( 2018) 303 CTR 637/168 DTR 109 (Delhi) (HC)/ Vrinda Grover v. UOI (2018) 303 CTR 637/168 DTR 109 ( Delhi) (HC) )
Mukul Talwar. v. UOI (2018) 406 ITR 472/ 303 CTR 639 /168 DTR 111 (Delhi) (HC) Vrinda Grover v. UOI (2018) 406 ITR 472/ 303 CTR 639/168 DTR 111 (Delhi) (HC)/ Pradeep Kumar v. UOI ( 2018) 303 CTR 636 /168 DTR 108 ( P& H) (HC)
S. 139AA: Return of income – Quoting of Aadhaar Number – Permanent Account number— Provision making it compulsory for all assessees to obtain Aadhaar Card and quote Aadhaar number to prescribed authority —Extension of time by Circular issued by CBDT -Directions issued stating that return filed by the assessee should be processed accordingly . [ Art .226 ]