Is the Aadhaar-PAN requirement in s.139AA valid, and can my existing PAN be cancelled under it?
Valid, with one limited relief. Section 139AA was upheld against Article 14, the classification being rationally connected to eliminating duplicate and fake PANs, and against Article 19(1)(g) as a reasonable restriction saved by Article 19(6); the Article 21 privacy challenge was expressly left to the Constitution Bench. The only relief was that the consequence in s.139AA(2) of treating a PAN as invalid could not operate retrospectively so as to unsettle completed transactions of existing PAN holders who had not enrolled.
Decided by the Supreme Court (Supreme Court of India — Dr A.K. Sikri and Ashok Bhushan JJ) on 2017-06-09, reported as [2017] 396 ITR 66 (SC); [2017] 249 Taxman 290 (SC); [2017] 296 CTR 17 (SC); [2017] 82 taxmann.com 211 (SC); (2017) 7 SCC 59; Writ Petition (Civil) Nos. 247, 277 and 304 of 2017. It bears on section 139AA(1), section 139AA(2), section 139AA proviso, section 139A, section Constitution Art. 14, section Constitution Art. 19(1)(g), section Constitution Art. 21 of the Income Tax Act 1961, in Assessment & Scrutiny matters.
The validity holding is the part that still does work, and it forecloses a fresh Article 14 or Article 19 attack on the linking requirement. The partial relief has been overtaken: the reserved privacy question was answered in favour of the provision by the Constitution Bench in September 2018, and PAN-Aadhaar linkage is now enforced with an unlinked PAN becoming inoperative. The prospective-operation reasoning survives only for the narrow purpose of resisting an attempt to unsettle transactions completed before linkage was required.
Binding on every court and authority in India.
Read aloud by your device. Press again to stop.
Section 139AA, inserted by the Finance Act 2017 with effect from 1 July 2017, required every person eligible to obtain an Aadhaar number to quote it, or the enrolment ID, in the application for allotment of PAN and in the return of income, and by sub-section (2) required existing PAN holders to intimate their Aadhaar number, the proviso deeming the PAN invalid, as if the person had never applied for it, on failure to do so. Three writ petitions in public interest challenged the provision. The petitioners confined their challenge to Articles 14 and 19(1)(g) and to legislative competence, arguing in particular that enrolment under the Aadhaar Act 2016 is voluntary and cannot be made compulsory through the Income-tax Act, and that invalidating a PAN would paralyse the right to carry on business; arguments touching Article 21 and privacy were also made in passing. The Union relied on the detection of 11.35 lakh duplicate or fraudulent PANs, about 10.52 lakh of them individual assessees, and on India's obligations under FATCA and the Common Reporting Standard. The challenge to Aadhaar on Article 21 and privacy grounds was already referred to a Constitution Bench in Writ Petition (Civil) No. 494 of 2012.
The writ petitions were disposed of in five parts (para 128). Parliament was fully competent to enact s.139AA and its authority to do so was not diluted by the Court's earlier interim orders in the pending Aadhaar matters. No conflict was found between the Aadhaar Act 2016 and s.139AA; read harmoniously they operate in distinct fields. Section 139AA is not discriminatory and does not offend Article 14. It is not violative of Article 19(1)(g) so far as it requires the Aadhaar enrolment number to be given when applying for PAN and in the return of income, and the proviso to sub-section (2) is read down to operate only prospectively. The Court expressly made the validity so upheld subject to the provision passing the test of Article 21, then before the Constitution Bench, and refrained from deciding the privacy question at all. Until that Bench decided, a partial stay was placed on the proviso, so that assessees who were not Aadhaar holders and had not complied were not to have their PAN treated as invalid for the time being (paras 125, 127(ii), 128(v)).
On competence, the Court held that the same requirement may be optional under one statute and compulsory under another: enrolment under the Aadhaar Act is voluntary because that Act's object is delivery of benefits and subsidies under its s.7, while s.139AA serves the different object of curbing black money, money laundering and tax evasion, so the two run in parallel and the validity of one is not tested against the other (paras 90 to 93). On Article 14, counsel for the petitioners conceded that the reasonable classification test was satisfied, so the argument turned only on rational nexus (para 97). The Court held that all income-tax assessees form one class and are treated alike, and that de-duplication of PAN was by itself enough to supply the nexus; a measure is not irrational merely because it will not achieve the object completely, and the absolute number of duplicate PANs detected could not be dismissed as miniscule (paras 99 and 103). On Article 19(1)(g) the Court split the section into two limbs (para 113). The first limb, the requirement to quote or intimate the Aadhaar number, does not by itself impinge on the right to carry on trade or profession, and was not even argued to (para 114). It is the second limb, invalidation of PAN under the proviso to sub-section (2), that would restrict that right, because PAN must be quoted under rule 114B for a wide range of everyday transactions; the question was therefore reasonableness under Article 19(6), to be tested by proportionality (para 115). The Court accepted that there had to be some consequence for non-compliance or the provision would be rendered toothless (paras 122 and 124), but because the Article 21 challenge was pending before the Constitution Bench it granted a partial stay of the proviso rather than deciding its proportionality, so that an existing PAN holder would not suffer invalidation in the interregnum (para 125). Separately and permanently, the proviso could not be read retrospectively: deeming a PAN void ab initio would unsettle accrued rights and undo everything done on the strength of that PAN, so it had to be read down as prospective (para 126). The Court consciously avoided any discussion of Article 21 and privacy, leaving the whole of that ground to the Constitution Bench (para 127(i)).
The rights which are already accrued to a person in law cannot be taken away. Therefore, this provision needs to be read down by making it clear that it would operate prospectively.
Upload it and we will read it, work out your deadline and draft the reply. A CA reviews before anything is filed.
Handle my notice → Ask a CA on WhatsAppValid, with one limited relief. Section 139AA was upheld against Article 14, the classification being rationally connected to eliminating duplicate and fake PANs, and against Article 19(1)(g) as a reasonable restriction saved by Article 19(6); the Article 21 privacy challenge was expressly left to the Constitution Bench. The only relief was that the consequence in s.139AA(2) of treating a PAN as invalid could not operate retrospectively so as to unsettle completed transactions of existing PAN holders who had not enrolled. This was decided by the Supreme Court (Supreme Court of India — Dr A.K. Sikri and Ashok Bhushan JJ) and bears on section 139AA(1), section 139AA(2), section 139AA proviso, section 139A, section Constitution Art. 14, section Constitution Art. 19(1)(g), section Constitution Art. 21 of the Income Tax Act 1961. It is reported as [2017] 396 ITR 66 (SC); [2017] 249 Taxman 290 (SC); [2017] 296 CTR 17 (SC); [2017] 82 taxmann.com 211 (SC); (2017) 7 SCC 59; Writ Petition (Civil) Nos. 247, 277 and 304 of 2017. The validity holding is the part that still does work, and it forecloses a fresh Article 14 or Article 19 attack on the linking requirement. The partial relief has been overtaken: the reserved privacy question was answered in favour of the provision by the Constitution Bench in September 2018, and PAN-Aadhaar linkage is now enforced with an unlinked PAN becoming inoperative. The prospective-operation reasoning survives only for the narrow purpose of resisting an attempt to unsettle transactions completed before linkage was required. If it applies to you, the first step is this: Use this decision only for the proposition that s.139AA survived Articles 14 and 19(1)(g), and not to resist linkage today.
Section 139AA, inserted by the Finance Act 2017 with effect from 1 July 2017, required every person eligible to obtain an Aadhaar number to quote it, or the enrolment ID, in the application for allotment of PAN and in the return of income, and by sub-section (2) required existing PAN holders to intimate their Aadhaar number, the proviso deeming the PAN invalid, as if the person had never applied for it, on failure to do so. Three writ petitions in public interest challenged the provision. The petitioners confined their challenge to Articles 14 and 19(1)(g) and to legislative competence, arguing in particular that enrolment under the Aadhaar Act 2016 is voluntary and cannot be made compulsory through the Income-tax Act, and that invalidating a PAN would paralyse the right to carry on business; arguments touching Article 21 and privacy were also made in passing. The Union relied on the detection of 11.35 lakh duplicate or fraudulent PANs, about 10.52 lakh of them individual assessees, and on India's obligations under FATCA and the Common Reporting Standard. The challenge to Aadhaar on Article 21 and privacy grounds was already referred to a Constitution Bench in Writ Petition (Civil) No. 494 of 2012. The matter was decided on 2017-06-09 by the Supreme Court (Supreme Court of India — Dr A.K. Sikri and Ashok Bhushan JJ). On those facts the Supreme Court held as follows. The writ petitions were disposed of in five parts (para 128). Parliament was fully competent to enact s.139AA and its authority to do so was not diluted by the Court's earlier interim orders in the pending Aadhaar matters. No conflict was found between the Aadhaar Act 2016 and s.139AA; read harmoniously they operate in distinct fields. Section 139AA is not discriminatory and does not offend Article 14. It is not violative of Article 19(1)(g) so far as it requires the Aadhaar enrolment number to be given when applying for PAN and in the return of income, and the proviso to sub-section (2) is read down to operate only prospectively. The Court expressly made the validity so upheld subject to the provision passing the test of Article 21, then before the Constitution Bench, and refrained from deciding the privacy question at all. Until that Bench decided, a partial stay was placed on the proviso, so that assessees who were not Aadhaar holders and had not complied were not to have their PAN treated as invalid for the time being (paras 125, 127(ii), 128(v)).
On competence, the Court held that the same requirement may be optional under one statute and compulsory under another: enrolment under the Aadhaar Act is voluntary because that Act's object is delivery of benefits and subsidies under its s.7, while s.139AA serves the different object of curbing black money, money laundering and tax evasion, so the two run in parallel and the validity of one is not tested against the other (paras 90 to 93). On Article 14, counsel for the petitioners conceded that the reasonable classification test was satisfied, so the argument turned only on rational nexus (para 97). The Court held that all income-tax assessees form one class and are treated alike, and that de-duplication of PAN was by itself enough to supply the nexus; a measure is not irrational merely because it will not achieve the object completely, and the absolute number of duplicate PANs detected could not be dismissed as miniscule (paras 99 and 103). On Article 19(1)(g) the Court split the section into two limbs (para 113). The first limb, the requirement to quote or intimate the Aadhaar number, does not by itself impinge on the right to carry on trade or profession, and was not even argued to (para 114). It is the second limb, invalidation of PAN under the proviso to sub-section (2), that would restrict that right, because PAN must be quoted under rule 114B for a wide range of everyday transactions; the question was therefore reasonableness under Article 19(6), to be tested by proportionality (para 115). The Court accepted that there had to be some consequence for non-compliance or the provision would be rendered toothless (paras 122 and 124), but because the Article 21 challenge was pending before the Constitution Bench it granted a partial stay of the proviso rather than deciding its proportionality, so that an existing PAN holder would not suffer invalidation in the interregnum (para 125). Separately and permanently, the proviso could not be read retrospectively: deeming a PAN void ab initio would unsettle accrued rights and undo everything done on the strength of that PAN, so it had to be read down as prospective (para 126). The Court consciously avoided any discussion of Article 21 and privacy, leaving the whole of that ground to the Constitution Bench (para 127(i)). In the words reproduced by the source cited on this page: "The rights which are already accrued to a person in law cannot be taken away. Therefore, this provision needs to be read down by making it clear that it would operate prospectively."
It was decided by the Supreme Court on 2017-06-09 and is reported as [2017] 396 ITR 66 (SC); [2017] 249 Taxman 290 (SC); [2017] 296 CTR 17 (SC); [2017] 82 taxmann.com 211 (SC); (2017) 7 SCC 59; Writ Petition (Civil) Nos. 247, 277 and 304 of 2017. Binding on every court and authority in India. A Supreme Court decision binds every assessing officer, every Commissioner (Appeals), every bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal and every High Court in India. An officer who declines to follow it is acting contrary to law, and that refusal is itself a ground of appeal. On section 139AA(1), section 139AA(2), section 139AA proviso, section 139A, section Constitution Art. 14, section Constitution Art. 19(1)(g), section Constitution Art. 21, the practical question is whether the facts of your own notice match the facts of this case closely enough for the same rule to apply.
It cuts both ways and is cited by both sides. The writ petitions were disposed of in five parts (para 128). Parliament was fully competent to enact s.139AA and its authority to do so was not diluted by the Court's earlier interim orders in the pending Aadhaar matters. No conflict was found between the Aadhaar Act 2016 and s.139AA; read harmoniously they operate in distinct fields. Section 139AA is not discriminatory and does not offend Article 14. It is not violative of Article 19(1)(g) so far as it requires the Aadhaar enrolment number to be given when applying for PAN and in the return of income, and the proviso to sub-section (2) is read down to operate only prospectively. The Court expressly made the validity so upheld subject to the provision passing the test of Article 21, then before the Constitution Bench, and refrained from deciding the privacy question at all. Until that Bench decided, a partial stay was placed on the proviso, so that assessees who were not Aadhaar holders and had not complied were not to have their PAN treated as invalid for the time being (paras 125, 127(ii), 128(v)). It arises in Assessment & Scrutiny matters, on section 139AA(1), section 139AA(2), section 139AA proviso, section 139A, section Constitution Art. 14, section Constitution Art. 19(1)(g), section Constitution Art. 21 of the Income Tax Act 1961, and was decided by Supreme Court of India — Dr A.K. Sikri and Ashok Bhushan JJ. Before relying on it, read the source linked on this page and check whether it has since been distinguished, overruled or overtaken by an amendment to the Income Tax Act. In practice the steps that follow from it are these. If a completed transaction or a closed proceeding is being reopened on the footing that the PAN was invalid for the pre-linkage period, take the holding that the invalidation consequence operates prospectively. Where higher deduction or collection is demanded because the PAN was inoperative, check whether a CBDT relief circular covers the case, since circulars have been issued relieving deductors where the PAN is subsequently linked within the prescribed time.
Still good law. A separate search on subsequent treatment confirms the reserved privacy question was answered in favour of the provision: the five-Judge Constitution Bench in the Aadhaar judgment of 26 September 2018 held by majority that s.139AA does not breach the right of privacy recognised in Puttaswamy, satisfying the tests of legality, legitimate state interest and proportionality (the same majority struck down mandatory Aadhaar-bank account linkage under the PMLA Rules). The partial relief in Binoy Viswam has therefore been overtaken: PAN-Aadhaar linkage is now enforced, an unlinked PAN becomes inoperative, and CBDT has issued circulars (including Circular 6/2024 and Circular 9/2025) relieving deductors from higher s.206AA/206CC rates where the PAN is subsequently linked within the prescribed time. That finding was checked against a published source, which is linked on this page, on 2026-08-25. Checking whether an authority still stands matters as much as knowing what it held: a decision may be overruled on one point and survive on another, or the provision it interprets may have been amended since. Read the source and the editor's note on this page before relying on it in a reply to an Assessing Officer or in an appeal.
Keep the two limbs of the relief apart. The reading down of the proviso to s.139AA(2) so that it operates only prospectively (para 126) is a holding. The direction that the PANs of non-compliant assessees not be treated as invalid (paras 125 and 128(v)) was in terms a partial stay pending the Constitution Bench's decision on Article 21, and is spent. The Court also made its whole Article 14 and 19(1)(g) conclusion subject to the provision passing the test of Article 21 (para 127(ii)), and deliberately said nothing about privacy. The consequences of an 'inoperative' PAN flow from Rule 114AAA and CBDT circulars rather than from anything decided in this judgment, so do not attribute them to the Court. The exact terms and current operation of CBDT Circulars 6/2024 and 9/2025 were not separately verified, and no judicial authority on s.206AA demands arising from inoperative PANs was found, so read the current circular text before relying on that relief. This library shows the verification state of every entry openly. This entry has not yet been read in full by a chartered accountant. The summary reflects the sources listed on this page. Read the source before you rely on it in a reply to an Assessing Officer or in an appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) or the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal.
The writ petitions were disposed of in five parts (para 128). Parliament was fully competent to enact s.139AA and its authority to do so was not diluted by the Court's earlier interim orders in the pending Aadhaar matters. No conflict was found between the Aadhaar Act 2016 and s.139AA; read harmoniously they operate in distinct fields. Section 139AA is not discriminatory and does not offend Article 14. It is not violative of Article 19(1)(g) so far as it requires the Aadhaar enrolment number to be given when applying for PAN and in the return of income, and the proviso to sub-section (2) is read down to operate only prospectively. The Court expressly made the validity so upheld subject to the provision passing the test of Article 21, then before the Constitution Bench, and refrained from deciding the privacy question at all. Until that Bench decided, a partial stay was placed on the proviso, so that assessees who were not Aadhaar holders and had not complied were not to have their PAN treated as invalid for the time being (paras 125, 127(ii), 128(v)).
TaxSphere, “Binoy Viswam v Union of India”, https://taxnotice.vittsphere.com/caselaw/case/binoy-viswam-v-union-of-india-139aa/ (validity last checked 2026-08-25)
The judgment itself is a government work and may be quoted freely. The summary, the validity note and the reasoning on this page are this library's own writing: quote them with attribution, and please do not present either as the words of the court — this page keeps the two apart and so should a quotation of it.
Every entry in this library links to where it was found, so you can check it yourself rather than take our word for it.
Days after the search they passed an order stopping me from leaving India without a tax clearance certificate. Can they do that, and does it even apply to a Black Money Act case?
I bought a flat and deducted 1 per cent under s.194-IA. CPC has raised a 20 per cent short-deduction demand because the seller's PAN was inoperative for want of Aadhaar linking. The seller has since linked it. Is there any way out?
CPC has raised a short-deduction demand on me because my payee's PAN was inoperative for want of Aadhaar linking. What exactly does an inoperative PAN do, and is there any Board relief?
I wrote off the whole cost of a laboratory building and its equipment under the scientific research provision. Can I also take depreciation on the same assets in later years, and can the department deny it for years before 1980 using an amendment made in 1980?
