Skip to main content

New Income Tax Rules – Submission of false Aadhaar number may be fined Rs. 10,000

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.

Government Servant can't avoid transfers, Court says



An Army engineer, who succeeded in nixing his first transfer in 2011 by approaching the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT), failed to earn similar relief a second time with the CAT as well as the Madras high court saying there was no scope for interference in routine transfers.

"A government servant holding a transferable post has no vested right to remain posted at a particular place," a division bench of the court comprising Justice R Banumathi and Justice TS Sivagnanam said last week.

The judges were passing orders on a petition filed by PR Anand Kumar, who entered the Military Engineering Services as surveyor assistant in 1985. Later, the post was re-designated as junior engineer. On November 8, 2011, Anand was transferred from Chennai to Visakhapatnam. When his request to be retained in Chennai was rejected, he approached the CAT. Citing paragraph 36(b)(c) of the transfer guidelines, the CAT said he ought not to have been transferred in the middle of an academic year. It asked the authorities to pass fresh orders if necessary.

After withdrawing the earlier order, the authorities then transferred Anand to Hyderabad by an order dated February 10, 2012. He again rushed to CAT, which dismissed his application this time. He then moved the high court.

Rejecting his petition, the judges said: "The scope of judicial review of orders of transfer is well settled. The high court, while exercising its jurisdiction under Article 226, is not expected to go into the question as to whether the transfer was for public service, as it would essentially require factual adjudication and depend upon the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case."

"Therefore, unless an order of transfer is shown to be an outcome of mala fide exercise or stated to be in violation of statutory provisions, the courts or the tribunals normally cannot interfere with such orders as a matter of routine," they said.

Though the guidelines deal with time of transfer and state that care will be taken to avoid transfers during the middle of the academic year, exceptions are available to meet requirements, the judges said. Transfers on administrative grounds may be ordered giving the employee less time, they said.


"There is no challenge to the order of transfer on the ground of any malafide exercise of power or that the order of transfer was passed by an incompetent authority or it violated any statutory rule," they said of Kumar's case.

Source: Times of India


Comments

Popular posts from this blog

DA will be 100% w.e.f. January 2014

Now it is very clear from the AICPIN issued today that DA will be 100% w.e.f. January 2014. Decline in AICPIN for December, 2013 vanished the expectation for crossing the DA from 100%. However, it will give a great relief to Central Government Employees and Pensioners as DA will be enhanced by 10% again. View ITian India on Facebook View statistics data for AICPIN here

Last date for filing the acknowledgement extended for AY 2009-10, 2010-11 and 2011-12

As per the new circular dated 10.02.2014, Central Board of Direct Taxes, in exercise of powers under section 119 (2) (a) of the Act, hereby further relaxes and extends the date for filing ITR -V Form for Assessment Years 2009-10, 2010-11 and 2011-12 till 31.03.2014 for returns e-Filed with refund claims within the time allowed under section 139 of the Act. The taxpayer concerned may send a duly signed copy of ITR-'V' to the CPC by this date by speed post In such cases, Central Board of Direct Taxes also relaxes the time-frame of issuing the intimation as provided in second proviso to sub section (1) of Section 143 of the Act and directs that such returns shall be processed within a period of six months from end of the month in which ITR-V is received and the intimation of processing of such returns shall be sent to the assessee concerned as per laid down procedure. Provision of sub-section (2) of section 244A of the Act would apply while determining the interest on such refund

New Income Tax Rules – Submission of false Aadhaar number may be fined Rs. 10,000

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.