|
Business
Loss of PAN card — what is the solution?
QUESTION: What is the procedure to be followed in case a duplicate Permanent Account Number (PAN) Card is required since the original is lost? The Income-tax Officer is not issuing in spite of letters. Is there any time limit by which the authorities must attend to such important matters since the requirement of PAN card need not be emphasised. Please advise whether there is any prescribed application form, fees to be paid, photos to be re-submitted, FIR to be lodged and the like. Will it be in order to get a new PAN to avoid the trouble of getting a duplicate?
ANSWER: It should certainly be not in order to apply for a new PAN Card, as though the applicant is a different assessee, where a card has already been issued. It is because it will disable the authorities from taking appropriate preventing action against abuse of lost card falling into wrong hands.
The reader has raised a common question in respect of a lost card, which should arise in quite a few cases in future.
There is as yet no procedure indicated either in law or any of the instructions.
It stands to reason that a duplicate PAN Card should be possible in such cases. It is better that the Central Board of Direct Taxes comes out with necessary instructions on the subject for the guidance not only of the assessees but also the officials themselves.
Hindu Law — can woman be a karta?
Q: I am the karta in my joint Hindu family consisting of myself, my wife, widowed daughter-in-law and minor grandsons. After my life, who will become the karta of the family? Clarification is required whether in the absence of major male member the eldest female member of the family can become karta and submit the tax returns accordingly.
A: Karta of a Hindu joint family in Hindu law is the senior most male member of the family entitled to manage the family properties and in the absence or incapacity including illness, the next senior most male member would be the karta. At least one male member is necessary to constitute a Hindu joint family, but where such male member is a minor, the issue as to, whether a female member could be the karta is the subject matter of decisions of courts.
In CIT v Seth Govind Ram Sugar Mils (1965) 57 ITR 510 (SC), the Supreme Court held that coparcenership is a necessary qualification to be the karta and that for this reason, a woman cannot even be a manager resolving the conflicting decisions of High Courts on this matter. It has approved the decision of the Madras High Court in V. M. N. Radha Ammal v CIT (1950) 18 ITR 225 (Mad) that though she could be neither a karta nor manager, she could act as guardian of the minor member of the family.
Probably the above decision would require review in the light of the recent decision in Ms. Githa Hariharan v Reserve Bank of India (1999) 236 ITR 380 (SC), where the Supreme Court recognised the distinction between the natural and legal guardian in interpretation of Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956 by a Bench of three Judges holding that it is not necessary for the mother to be a legal guardian only when the father is not available. If she happens to be in charge of the minor's affairs, she could also be a legal guardian. The concept of legal guardian includes natural guardian, a testamentary guardian or a guardian of a Hindu minor appointed or declared by a court of law for the purpose of minor's affairs apart from guardianship under the provisions of Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956. The fundamental right to equality prohibiting discrimination on the ground of sex, it was pointed out, is a mandate of law.
It would therefore appear that the eldest female member, in the absence of an adult male member, could be a manager and inter alia file tax return, even if she could not be characterised as karta, and to carry on the affairs of the joint family, especially since she herself is a member of the family.
Effect of restriction on rebate u/s 88
Q: Sec. 88 rebate at 20 per cent continues to be available for those with a total income not exceeding Rs. 1.50 lakhs. Such total income being reckoned without giving effect to deduction under Chapter VIA. My total income exceeds Rs. 1.50 lakhs before standard deduction which is Rs. 24,000 in my case (since my salary is Rs. 72,000). Can I avail higher deduction?
A: The limit is gross total income which is before deductions under Chapter VIA. Chapter VIA only deals with incentive deductions for business or profession. Those which apply for persons without business income are normally deductions like those under Sec. 80D, 80DD, 80DDB, 80G, 80L and 80U. These and other deductions under Chapter VIA are not counted, so that if the limit before such deduction exceeds Rs. 1.50 lakhs the rebate will get reduced to 15 per cent and if such a limit exceeds Rs. 5 lakhs, the rebate is altogether inadmissible.
If the salary component forms 90 per cent or more of gross total with salary income itself not exceeding Rs. 1 lakh, the tax rebate is 30 per cent. Standard deduction in any event will go to reduce gross total income itself.
The reader has to be content with tax rebate of 15 per cent, unless the enlarged deduction proposed for AY 1994-95 brings him below Rs. 1.50 lakhs for purposes of rebate for 1994-95.
S. Rajaratnam
Printer friendly
page
Send this article to Friends by
E-Mail
Business
|
