As it is well known that the income tax department has allowed Aadhaar card holders to use the biometric id number in lieu of the Permanent Account Number (PAN). But as per new provision of Income Tax, fine of Rs. 10,000 may be levied in case of wrong Aadhar Number. As per the latest amendments in the Finance Bill 2019, not only allowed people to use Aadhaar in lieu of PAN but also introduced a penalty for giving a false Aadhaar number. However, the new penalty rules are applicable only in cases where you are using Aadhaar in lieu of PAN and where quoting PAN is mandatory according to the income tax department rules. It is well known that although Aadhaar is issued by the Unique Identity Authority of India, yet the fine is not imposed by UIDAI but by the income tax department. Under Section 272B of the Income Tax Act, 1961, the department can impose a penalty in case of default in complying with provisions relating to PAN, i.e., failure to obtain, quote, or authenticate PAN.
Promotion cannot be withheld
because of the mere pendency of investigation, rules CAT
Soruce : The Hindu, 24 June 2013
The Central Administrative Tribunal, Madras Bench, has ruled
that promotion cannot be withheld because of the mere pendency of investigation
and directed the Defence Ministry to promote an Indian Ordnance Factories
Service (IOFS) officer within 45 days.
Disposing of an application filed
by M. Ravi, a 1975 batch officer, the Bench, comprising members B. Venkateswara
Rao and Naresh Gupta, held that the defence authorities had erred in
withholding his promotion without valid reason. The Bench also said, “No charge
sheet has been issued to the applicant. The promotion was withheld merely on
the ground of pendency of criminal investigation by the CBI.”
Mr. Ravi is presently working as
Senior Deputy Director of General, Armoured Vehicles Factory, Avadi.
He contended that he served in
various capacities in other factories. The Departmental Promotion Committee
(DPC) convened in January 2012 and 2013 recommended his name along with S.K.
Gupta and B.N. Singh for promotion to Appointments Committee of the Cabinet
(ACC) for its final approval.
He was not promoted on the ground
of a criminal investigation by CBI pending against him. The investigation was a
result of an alleged irregularity that took place when he was working at
ordnance factory, Medak, between 1999 and 2005.
In an application before CAT, he
also sought a direction to the defence authorities to promote him. He also
contended that the promotion had been withheld because of ‘long pending’
investigation but there was no disciplinary action of any kind initiated
against him. Hence, Mr. Ravi said that the authorities postponed the promotion
indefinitely.
The defence authorities contended
that six vacancies arose in the level of member to the Ordnance Factory Board.
In fact, the recommendation of DPC
should be approved by Appointments Committee of the Cabinet (ACC) for effecting
promotion. Along with others, the candidature of Mr. Ravi was also considered.
In view of the investigation by the CBI with respect to him, the ACC accorded
its approval to others and directed the Defence Ministry to resubmit the
proposal for promotion of Mr. Ravi after completion of the ongoing
investigation.
The Tribunal also pointed out that
a draft charge sheet which did not fructify into regular charge sheet and that
should not be a ground for withholding promotion. The Tribunal added, “Unless a
regular charge sheet is issued, no disciplinary action can be initiated against
the officer of the government and no promotion can be withheld by the mere
pendency of investigation.”
Comments
Post a Comment