The CBDT has issued Office Order No. 127/2013 dated 14.06.2013 stating that the President of India has appointed Ms. Sudha Sharma as Chairperson of the Central Board of Direct Taxes (CBDT) in the pay scale of Rs. 80,000 (fixed) with the status of Special Secretary to the Government. Upon taking charge, Ms. Sudha Sharma addressed a letter in which she pointed out that that the guiding principles of “non-intrusive” and “non-adversarial” tax administration as laid down by the Finance Minister has to be followed by the department in its day-to-day working. She also emphasized that the department has to create an environment for voluntary compliance. She pointed out that as tax collectors of the country, the tax department has a pivotal role to play in national growth and has to achieve the huge target of budget collection. She emphasized that the potential for tax collection is much higher given that there is a base of only about 3.5 crore assesses, a mere 2.9% of the national population, of which only 42,800 declares annual income over Rs. 1 crore. She stated that while the endeavour would be to promote voluntary compliance and provide hassle-free service to the honest tax payers, focus would need to be kept on non-filers and stop-filers in order in order to enhance the tax base and augment tax collection. She also stated that the department is aiming at achieving a tax regulation regimen in India which can match the best in the world.
We wish Dr. Sudha Sharma good luck in her new posting.
Office Order No. 127 of 2013 + Letter from CBDT Chairperson (38.2 KiB, 1,188 hits)
With no further deveolpment so far , to provide encouraging or helpful guidance, the only option open , it seems, is to take one’s (own) choice and decide , in consultation with a competent lawyer having knowledge and exposure both on tax law and property law – especially, on States’ specal law on Flats. In doing so, it might be prudent to bear in mind the noted deficiencies in the enactment i.e. Section 194 IA mandating a 1 % TDS.
One such defriciency of primary concern , as indicated before, for a better appreciation, has since been brought out in greater details @ http://taxguru.in/income-tax/section-194-ia-writeup.html
Add on
In Para.2., first line, to read June 1 (in place of April 1)
The several write-ups authored by professsionals at large, mainly CAs, who have merrily been engaged in the pastime of dealing with the new TDS requirement, are invariably bent upon following a ‘beaten track’, and, on more than one aspect. Topping them all, is the term “part of a building” , which, it appears, is presumed to be wide enough to rope within its ambit, also ‘units’ (Flats or Apartments). In doing so, the viewponts stressed and put across , with supporting logic and reasoning, to counter and urging why nothing can be more wrong, seem to have been glossed over, and not been accorded any serious thought.
Even the Revenue , as has never been known to be otherwise, appears to have thus far preferred to lie low and remain mute, thereby creating an impression that all is well with the new provision; and there is no lacuna(e) or loophole to be plugged in, on the mentioned aspect. So much so, none, be it the tax paying community or advising professionals are no wiser but obliged to continue in a ‘trishanku’ like situation.
In consequence, no option except to take one’s choice; and wait for that d’day when any further development comes along and brings about a rude awakening. That may or not happen at all; in any case, seems unlikely in the foreseeable future. Not to worry ; historically, the pattern of events not remembered to have ever been any diffrerent.
@Nem Singh
Reciprocating his sentiments, one is provoked to hasten and add an open Appeal, in the larger public interests:
As is being canvassed and reiterated in concerned quarters , the CBDT will , living up to the sincere expectations, do well to immediately act on, besides others, the following two matters, of common concern, on a top priority basis:
1. As is common knowledge, in the wake of, and following the Delhi HC’s writ of Mandamus, there has been an unprecedented heavy rush and workload in the Department, particularly in core canters e.g. cities like Bangalore. That is mostly because of enormously huge number of assessees’ applications made but pending for rectification. Many, as gathered, are against patently infructuous and frivolous demands, mindlessly raised by AOs / CPC by reason of no credit or proper credit having been allowed for taxes paid by way of TDS. According to information, the fate of many of the applications so made has not been made known to the assessees, hence worried not having been sent any communication, whatsoever ; not even in known cases where, based on the explanations and data provided by assesses, such demands deseve to have been cancelled forthwith.
2. In the recently introduced section 194 IA, supposed to be in effect from April 1, 2013, as pointed out and urged in certain quarters , including the affected Realty Sector, there are lacunae requiring the necessary correctives to be plugged in, for the requirement to be strictly complied with. Among them, one grave doubt is on the very question, – as to whether the provision, in its present terms / wording, has application to cases of transfers of “units” of a building comprising “flats” or “apartments”. In one’s impartial view, the cogent reasons given and the sound logic behind, for urging prompt action / clarifications, are not-so-difficult as not to readily see and appreciate the validity thereof.
It is hoped on hopes that the newly appointed madam-chief of the top Executive Authority (CBDT) would , as indicated, bring in a new-look to the functioning of the Department’ and primarily a welcome change for a long desired but pending tax-payers-friendly environment Reference, of course, is to the mentioned, – “the only about 3.5 crore assesses, a mere 2.9% of the national population”).
West of luck! God grace you more! Nice to heard from you but how it is possible in current scenario where the department not working properly. It uses force and harass the assessees in proceedings etc.