Delhi H.C : The interim order made by this Court has to be seen in the context of the directions of the Supreme Court in Binoy Viswam Vs. Union of India, (2017) 7 SCC 59; especially in para 133, which by and large, upheld the validity of Section 139AA of the Income Tax Act, 1961

High Court Of Delhi

Mukul Talwar & Anr. vs. Union Of India And Others

Section 139AA

S. Ravindra Bhat & & A. K. Chawla, JJ.

W.P.(C) 3212/2018 & CM APPL 12718-12719/2018 & W.P.(C) 3226/2018 & CM APPL 1276012761/2018

14th July, 2018

Counsel Appeared:

Kirti Uppal, Sr. Adv. with Prasanna, S. and Soutik Banerjee, Advocates Rebecca John, Sr. Adv. with Prasanna, S. and Soutik Banerjee, Advocates for the Petitioner.: Ravi Prakash, CGSC with Farman Ali, Nitish Gupta and Anshula Lariya, Advocates Zoheb Hossain, Sr. Standing Counsel Deepak Anand, Gaurang Kanth for the Respondent

ORDER

Counsel appearing for the Revenue urges that the interim order made by this Court has to be seen in the context of the directions of the Supreme Court in Binoy Viswam Vs. Union of India, (2017) 7 SCC 59; especially in para 133, which by and large, upheld the validity of Section 139AA of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereafter “the Act”). The para under consideration is granting limited relief as has been given by the larger Bench judgment delivered by Nine Judges. Attention of the Court is also invited to the order of Five Judges, who were parties to the Nine Judges’ Bench decision in the case of Justice K.S.Puttaswamy (Retd) vs. Union of India (2017) 10 SCC 1. It is therefore urged that the CBDT’s circular relied upon by the petitioner is contextual and compliant of Section 139AA of the Act is the norm.

This Court has considered the submissions.

When Binoy Viswam (supra) was decided, the Court was conscious of the issue as to whether the fundamental right to privacy existed or otherwise was moot; the Larger Bench of the Judges is seized of the reference. Consciously, therefore, Binoy Viswam (supra) had not only upheld the validity of Section 139 AA of the Act but also added a note of caution that the consequences spelt out under Section 139AA(2) of the Act would not be presently visited with respect to those assesses who are not Aadhaar Card holders and do not comply with the mandate. The Five Judges (who were part of the Bench) merely reiterated those observations when the judgment was pronounced by the nine Judges. If the CBDT’s circular dated 27.03.2018 is noticed in the background of these circumstances, there is no room for doubt that the time for linking PAN with Aadhaar has been extended to June 2018 in its expressed term. The Court, therefore, sees no reason to vary its previous order. The returns filed by the petitioner shall be expedited and processed in accordance with law subject to the outcome of the decision in WP(C) 494/2012 and connected matters.

Writ petitions are disposed of in the above terms. Pending applications too are disposed of. Order dasti to the parties.

[Citation : 406 ITR 472]