an>
Title : Discussion on the motion for consideration of Taxation Laws (Amendment) Bill, 2005 (Motion adopted and Bill passed).
MR. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: Now we take item no. 23, Taxation Laws (Amendment) Bill, 2005. Shri P. Chidambaram.
THE MINISTER OF FINANCE (SHRI P. CHIDAMBARAM): Sir, I beg to move: *
“That the Bill further to amend the Income Tax Act, 1961, the Customs Act, 1962, the Customs Tariff Act, 1975, the Central Excise Act, 1944 and the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956, be taken into consideration.”
Sir, some of these amendments were hinted at by me when I moved the Budget. But I said that I would not burden the Finance Bill with these amendments. So, these amendments could be brought forward as a separate Taxation Laws (Amendment) Bill, and that is how this Bill was introduced in this House in the year 2005.
Sir, this Bill has gone to a Standing Committee. The Standing Committee has carefully scrutinised the Bill, and has made some recommendations. We have studied the recommendations, and we have accepted a number of recommendations made by the Standing Committee.
Sir, as far as the amendments are concerned, many of them are simply administrative and procedural in nature. For example, we are amending the definition of the Tax Recovery Officer (TRO); we have provided an exemption of the income of the North-Eastern Development Finance Corporation; we are amending section 10 clause 23C to provide for one time notification of entities
_________________________________________________________________
*Moved with the recommendation of the President.
covered by sub-clause (iv), namely, charitable trusts and funds and institutions of national importance or importance throughout a State or States, and trusts or institutions wholly for public religious purposes or wholly for public religious and charitable purposes. They need not apply for renewal every three years.
Sir, we have made mandatory the auditing of accounts for entities covered under sub-clauses (iv), (v), (vi) and (via) of clause 23C of section 10.
Section 12A is proposed to be amended in order to increase the threshold limit for mandatory auditing of accounts in case of charitable trusts and institutions from Rs. 50,000 to the maximum amount. This will align the limit for auditing provided in this section with the maximum amount, which is not chargeable to income tax.
We propose to amend section 35 sub-section (1) to provide that the approval to be granted by the Central Government to entities which are scientific research association or engaged in scientific research will be subject to such guidelines and conditions as maybe prescribed.
Section 35 sub-section (1) is proposed to be amended to substitute the word ‘authority’ by the word ‘Government’ in the second proviso. The power to grant approval under section 35 was earlier with the prescribed authority. Now, the power vests with the Central Government. However, the consequential amendment was not made in section 35 (1). Therefore, we are correcting that lapse.
We are proposing to give a time limit of one year to streamline the procedure of approval and avoid delays for grant or rejection of application under section 35 (1).
Section 40 is proposed to be amended to include rent and royalty in the list of payments where non-deduction of TDS will render such payment ineligible for tax deduction.
Section 40A is proposed to be amended to substitute the words “an account payee cheque drawn on a bank or an account payee bank draft” instead of the current provision of “a crossed cheque or a crossed bank draft.”
Section 56 is proposed to be amended to exclude sums received without consideration from funds, foundations, universities or other educational institutions wholly public or wholly public religious and charitable institutions referred to in clause 23C of section 10. This will address difficulties likely to be encountered by persons receiving sums of money from charitable or religious entities.
Section 56 is also proposed to be amended to increase the aggregate threshold limit from Rs. 25,000 to Rs. 50,000. The intention is to prevent split transactions, which we find is happening when the threshold is Rs. 25,000.
Section 139 is proposed to be amended to provide for mandatory filing of returns by certain entities. Section 139 is also proposed to be amended to require every University, college or institution to file a return of income.
Section 143 (3) is proposed to be amended to provide for a mechanism for withdrawal by the Central Government of the approval granted to a university under section 35 (1) where their activities are not being carried out in accordance with conditions subject to which such approval was granted. This was a clear lacuna in the Act, and this lacunais now being removed.
Section 155 is proposed to be amended to extend the time limit for passing of rectification order. Section 194-I is proposed to be amended to amend the definition of rent to cover different arrangements which are really a disguise for rent.
Section 194-J is proposed to be amended to bring receipts exceeding Rs. 20,000 on account of royalty and non-compete fee within the ambit of TDS.
Sections 246A and 275 are proposed to be amended to provide for revision of penalty order in cases where an appellate order is received or revision order is ordered under Sections 263 or 264.
Section 288B is proposed to be amended to provide for rounding off the tax, interest, penalty to the nearest multiple of Rs. 10 instead of the existing nearest Re. 1.
These are as far as direct taxes are concerned. As far as indirect taxes are concerned, again, the amendments are largely procedural in order to include tax administration.
Section 17 of the Customs Act is proposed to be amended by issuing a speaking order within 15 days.
Section 18 is proposed to be amended to prescribe the procedure to regulate refunds and recovery of dues after provisional assessment.
New sub-section 1A is proposed to be added to Section 28 and to Section 11A to provide for an optional scheme for voluntary payment of duty by assessees in full or in part, if they do so within 30 days of the show-cause notice.
Section 28BA and Section 11DDA are proposed to be included in the Central Excise Act to enable the Government to attach provisionally the property belonging to a person during the pendency of assessment proceedings in order to prevent disposal of property even before adjudication is complete.
We are bringing a few Sections within the ambit of Section 104. We are expanding the ambit of Section 108 to empower the officer to summon any person for any enquiry. This is the practice, but there is no provision.
New Section 110A is being added to the Customs Act to enable provisional release of goods.
New Section 114AA is being added to the Customs Act for levy of penalty up to five times the value of the goods against improper exportation of goods.
We are providing for an issue of show-cause notice under Section 124. We are providing for an appeal under Section 129D and Section 35E to the officer of the department.
We are enhancing the maximum period of imprisonment from six months to two years for offences under Sections 132 and 133, which are very serious offences.
We are including Section 135A for taking cognizance of any offence by the courts. We are inserting new Section 154B and 37E in the Customs Act and Excise Act for publication of names and other particulars of tax evaders.
We are curing the ambiguity in the first proviso to Section 8B concerning exemption from application of safeguard duty for developing countries.
We are amending rule 16 of the Central Excise Rules to declare the independent wire drawing units as “assessees” under central excise.
We are proposing to amend Section 25 of the Central Sales Tax Act to provide for transfer of proceedings relating to inter-State disputes pending before an appellate authority of a State or the Union Territory to the Authority notified under Section 24 (1).
As hon. Members have noticed, all this is to improve tax administration. This is not imposing any new taxes: this is just tightening up tax administration. Over the years we have gained experience. I have also observed the Department. I think these provisions are necessary if we must tighten tax administration.
Sums are very large today and incentive to evade tax also is very large today. Earlier, if somebody paid tax of a lakh of rupees or two lakhs of rupees, he was considered a large taxpayer. Today, taxes run into hundreds of crores of rupees. Therefore, the incentive to evade is also very high. Therefore, we must tighten tax administration.
I have accepted many of the suggestions of the Standing Committee which I have mentioned here. I would request the hon. Members to discuss and then ultimately pass the Bill with the amendments that I proposed.
श्री सन्दीप दीक्षित (पूर्वी दिल्ली) : àÉcÉänªÉ, àÉé àÉÉxÉxÉÉÒªÉ ÉÊ´ÉkÉ àÉÆjÉÉÒ VÉÉÒ uÉ®É |ɺiÉÖiÉ ÉʤÉãÉ BÉEÉ ºÉàÉlÉÇxÉ BÉE®xÉä BÉEä ÉÊãÉA JÉ½É cÖ+ÉÉ cÚÆ* ´ÉèºÉä VÉÉä |ÉÉ´ÉvÉÉxÉ <ºÉ ÉʤÉãÉ àÉå cé, =xcå àÉéxÉä ºÉÆÉÊFÉ{iÉ °ô{É ºÉä näJÉÉ cè +ÉÉè® àÉÖZÉä xÉcÉÓ ãÉMÉiÉÉ cè ÉÊBÉE <ºÉàÉå BÉEÉä<Ç ÉʴɶÉäÉ SÉSÉÉÇ BÉEÉÒ +ÉɴɶªÉBÉEiÉÉ cè* ÉÊ´ÉkÉ àÉÆjÉÉÒ VÉÉÒ xÉä VÉ¤É +É{ÉxÉÉ ¤ÉVÉ] {Éä¶É ÉÊBÉEªÉÉ lÉÉ, iÉ¤É +É{ÉxÉÉÒ nÚ®nÉ̶ÉiÉÉ +ÉÉè® +É{ÉxÉä |ÉMÉÉÊiɶÉÉÒãÉ cÉäxÉä BÉEÉ ABÉE UÉä]É ºÉÉ =nÉc®hÉ +É{ÉxÉä ¤ÉVÉ] |ɺiÉÉ´ÉÉå àÉå +ɴɶªÉ ÉÊnJÉɪÉÉ lÉÉ* <ºÉ ÉʤÉãÉ BÉEä uÉ®É =xcÉåxÉä +É{ÉxÉÉÒ BÉEɪÉÇ|ɤÉxvÉxÉ BÉEÉÒ FÉàÉiÉÉ, ÉÊ´ÉkÉÉÒªÉ |ɤÉxvÉxÉ BÉEÉÒ FÉàÉiÉÉ BÉEÉä ¤ÉcÖiÉ cÉÒ ºÉÉ{ÉE +ÉÉè® º´ÉSU °ô{É àÉå n¶ÉÉǪÉÉ cè* càÉxÉä BÉE<Ç ¤ÉÉ® +ÉxÉäBÉE ÉÊ´ÉkÉ àÉÆÉÊjɪÉÉå BÉEÉä xɪÉä ]èBÉDºÉ ãÉMÉÉiÉä cÖA +ÉÉè® ]èBÉDºÉ BÉEä |ɶÉɺÉxÉ +ÉÉè® |ɤÉxvÉxÉ BÉEÉä VªÉÉnÉ VÉÉÊ]ãÉ iÉlÉÉ BÉE½É ¤ÉxÉÉxÉä BÉEä ÉÊãÉA BÉEnàÉ =~ÉiÉä cÖA näJÉÉ cè* ãÉäÉÊBÉExÉ <iÉxÉä ÉʴɺiÉßiÉ °ô{É àÉå VÉxÉiÉÉ BÉEÉä {ÉEɪÉnÉ cÉä, VÉÉä ]èBÉDºÉ nä ®cÉ cè, VÉÉä BÉE® nä ®cÉ cè, =ºÉä VÉcÉÆ BÉEcÉÓ £ÉÉÒ ÉÊnBÉDBÉEiÉ +ÉÉiÉÉÒ cè, =ºÉ |ÉhÉÉãÉÉÒ àÉå ºÉÖvÉÉ® ãÉɪÉÉ VÉÉA +ÉÉè® ºÉ®ãÉ ¤ÉxÉɪÉÉ VÉÉA, AäºÉä ãÉà¤Éä SÉÉè½ä BÉEnàÉ BÉEàÉ cÉÒ näJÉxÉä BÉEÉä ÉÊàÉãÉiÉä cé* <ºÉBÉEä ÉÊãÉA àÉé +ÉÉè® {ÉÚ®É ºÉnxÉ ÉÊ´ÉkÉ àÉÆjÉÉÒ VÉÉÒ BÉEÉä vÉxªÉ´ÉÉn näiÉä cé*
वित्त मंत्री जी, आपने विस्तार रूप में अपने भाषण में जिन-जिन प्रावधानों को अंकित किया है, जो बदलाव लाने जा रहे हैं, वे स्वागत योग्य हैं। मुझे नहीं लगता है कि मुझमें या किसी और में भी आप से बेहतर इन प्रावधानों को जानने की क्षमता है। लेकिन मुझे कर प्रणाली पर अपनी टिप्पणी करने का मौका मिला है, इसलिए मैं कुछ बिंदुओं की तरफ आपका ध्यान आकर्षित करना चाहूंगा। आज जो व्यक्ति कर देता है, खास कर मैं पर्सनल इनकम टैक्स की बात कर रहा हूं, कहीं न कहीं इनकम टैक्स की प्रणाली मे कमियां हैं, उससे जब भी आम आदमी का वास्ता पड़ता है, अपने आपको कमजोर और असहाय मानता है। आम आदमी के दफ्तरों में या उनकी बातचीत में पहली चीज इनकम टैक्स के भय की होती है। कुछ साल पहले मैं आम आदमी के रूप में कर प्रशासन से मिलता था। पिछले कुछ समय से मैं सांसद के रूप में कर प्रशासन के साथ मिलता हूं। लेकिन मैं जब भी कर प्रशासन से मिलता हूं, अपने आपको उनसे डरा हुआ महसूस करता हूं। मेरे अंदर आम आदमी जैसा ही भय रहता है कि न जाने कब किसी तरह की चीज मेरे सामने कर प्रशासन प्रस्तुत कर दे या कौन सा सवाल मेरे सामने कब खड़ा कर दे या कौन सी चीज़ मुझ से कब पूछ ले, जिसे मैं कभी भी समझ नहीं पाऊंगा। मुझे इस बारे में कुछ न कुछ संदेह रहता है। एक बात सही है कि जो-जो व्यक्ति इस देश में कर देता है कहीं न कहीं उसके अंदर यह भय रहता है कि किसी न किसी दिन एक चिट्ठी कर विभाग से आएगी और उसके बाद आने वाले महीनों में वह किसी न किसी चक्कर में फंसा रहेगा। कर प्रशासन और कर देने वाले व्यक्ति के बीच में समानता का, मानवता का, संवेदनशीलता का एक वातावरण होना चाहिए, जो नहीं है। इस वातावरण को बनाने की अति आवश्यकता है। करदाता की देश के प्रति, कानून के प्रति जो जिम्मेदारी है, वह उसे पूर्ण करता है। उसी के कर से यह देश चलता है, उसी के कर से जितने भी प्रगतिशील कार्य हैं या प्रगतिशील योजनाएं हैं, उन्हें पूर्ण करने में सहयोग मिलता है। आज हमें कर देने वाले को इज्जत से, इज्जत से ही नहीं बल्कि और ज्यादा इज्जत की नजर से देखने की आवश्यकता है।
àÉé ÉÊ´ÉkÉ àÉÆjÉÉÒ VÉÉÒ BÉEÉ ABÉE +ÉÉè® {ÉcãÉÚ BÉEÉÒ +ÉÉä® vªÉÉxÉ +ÉÉBÉEÉÌÉiÉ BÉE°ôÆMÉÉ* àÉä®É lÉÉä½É VÉÖ½É´É MÉè® ºÉ®BÉEÉ®ÉÒ ºÉÆMÉ~xÉÉå ºÉä ®ciÉÉ cè* =xÉBÉEä ¤ÉÉ®ä àÉå ÉÊ{ÉUãÉä 8-10 ´ÉÉÉç ºÉä BÉE<Ç iÉ®c BÉEÉÒ ¤ÉÉiÉå +ÉÉè® §ÉàÉ ãÉÉäMÉ ºÉÖxÉiÉä ®cä cé* JÉÉºÉ BÉE® |ɶÉɺÉxÉ ºÉàÉZÉiÉÉ cè ÉÊBÉE AäºÉÉÒ ºÉƺlÉÉAÆ {ÉèºÉÉ ¤ÉxÉÉxÉä ªÉÉ UÖ{ÉÉxÉä BÉEä ºÉÉvÉxÉ cé +ÉÉè® ÉÊ´Énä¶É àÉå BÉEÉä<Ç AäºÉÉ ¤É½É JÉVÉÉxÉÉ cè VÉcÉÆ ºÉä ÉÊxÉ®ÆiÉ® bÉìãÉ® ãÉÉxÉä BÉEÉÒ |ÉÉʵÉEªÉÉ SÉãÉ ®cÉÒ cè* +ÉÉn®hÉÉÒªÉ ÉÊ´ÉkÉ àÉÆjÉÉÒ VÉÉÒ, nä¶É àÉå ¤ÉcÖiÉ ºÉä AäºÉä BªÉÉÎBÉDiÉ cé VÉÉä BÉEcÉÓ xÉ BÉEcÉÓ +É{ÉxÉä àÉxÉ àÉå ºÉä´ÉÉ £ÉÉ´ÉxÉÉ ®JÉiÉä cé +ÉÉè® ´Éä <xÉ iÉàÉÉàÉ ºÉÆMÉ~xÉÉå ªÉÉ <ºÉ iÉ®ÉÒBÉEä BÉEÉÒ ºÉƺlÉÉ+ÉÉäÆ BÉEä àÉÉvªÉàÉ ºÉä UÉä]ä-UÉä]ä iÉ®ÉÒBÉEä ºÉä, +É{ÉxÉÉÒ-+É{ÉxÉÉÒ VÉMÉcÉå àÉå nä¶É ºÉä´ÉÉ àÉå ãÉMÉä ®ciÉä cé* AäºÉä ºÉÆMÉ~xÉÉå BÉEÉä VÉ¤É £ÉÉÒ BÉE® |ɶÉɺÉxÉ ºÉä ÉÊàÉãÉxÉÉ {ɽiÉÉ cè iÉÉä ÉÊnBÉDBÉEiÉå =~ÉxÉÉÒ {ɽiÉÉÒ cé* àÉé +É{ÉxÉä ABÉE +ÉxÉÖ£É´É BÉEä ¤ÉÉ®ä àÉå ¤ÉiÉÉ ®cÉ cÚÆ* àÉé ÉʴɺiÉÉ® ºÉä xÉcÉÓ, àÉÉä]ä °ô{É àÉå ¤ÉiÉÉ ®cÉ cÚÆ* iÉÉÒxÉ àÉcÉÒxÉä {ÉÚ´ÉÇ VÉ¤É àÉéxÉä ÉÊnããÉÉÒ àÉå BÉE® |ɶÉɺÉxÉ ºÉä, +É{ÉxÉä VÉÉxÉä cÖA ºÉÆMÉ~xÉÉå BÉEä ¤ÉÉ®ä àÉå BÉE<Ç ¤ÉÉ® ºÉÉFÉÉiBÉEÉ® ÉÊBÉEªÉÉ, ¤ÉÉiÉSÉÉÒiÉ BÉEÉÒ iÉÉä c® ¤ÉÉ® ªÉÉ iÉÉä àÉÖZÉä +É{ÉxÉä {Én BÉEÉÒ BÉEcÉÓ xÉ BÉEcÉÓ £ÉxÉBÉE näxÉÉÒ {ɽÉÒ ªÉÉ càÉÉ®ä SÉÉ]ÇbÇ ABÉEÉ=Æ]å] BÉEÉä AäºÉä |É£ÉÉ´ÉÉå BÉEÉ <ºiÉäàÉÉãÉ BÉE®xÉÉ {ɽÉ. ¶ÉɪÉn =xÉBÉEÉÒ +ÉɴɶªÉBÉEiÉÉ xÉcÉÓ lÉÉÒ* ªÉc VÉÉxÉiÉä cÖA ÉÊBÉE ªÉc àÉÉàÉãÉÉ ºÉÆ´ÉänxɶÉÉÒãÉ cè ãÉäÉÊBÉExÉ àÉé BÉEc ®cÉ cÚÆ ÉÊBÉE AäºÉÉÒ ¤ÉÉiÉ cÉäiÉÉÒ cè* àÉé UÉä]ä ºÉÆMÉ~xÉÉå BÉEÉÒ ¤ÉÉiÉ BÉEc ®cÉ cÚÆ* ¤É½ä ºÉÆMÉ~xÉÉå ªÉÉ BÉE®nÉiÉÉ+ÉÉäÆ, ÉÊVÉxÉ BÉEä ¤ÉÉ®ä àÉå ÉÊ´ÉkÉ àÉÆjÉÉÒ VÉÉÒ xÉä ¤ÉJÉÚ¤ÉÉÒ BÉEcÉ ÉÊBÉE +ÉÉVÉ ¤ÉcÖiÉ ºÉä ¤É½ä BÉE® näxÉä ´ÉÉãÉä ¤ÉxÉ MÉA cé. =xÉBÉEÉÒ BÉE® ºÉä c]xÉä BÉEÉÒ ªÉÉ ]èBÉDºÉ ºÉä ¤ÉSÉxÉä BÉEÉÒ £ÉÉÒ àÉƶÉÉ VªÉÉnÉ ®ciÉÉÒ cè, <ºÉBÉEä ÉÊãÉA =xcÉåxÉä VÉÉä |ÉÉ´ÉvÉÉxÉ ÉÊBÉEA cé, =xÉBÉEä ãÉÚ{ÉcÉäãºÉ BÉEÉä ®ÉäBÉEÉ VÉÉAMÉÉ* <ºÉÉÒ BÉEä ºÉÉlÉ BÉE® näxÉä BÉEÉÒ |ÉhÉÉãÉÉÒ BÉEÉä £ÉÉÒ +ÉɺÉÉxÉ BÉE®xÉÉ ¤ÉcÖiÉ +ÉɴɶªÉBÉE cè* BÉE®ÉÒ¤ÉxÉ 15 ºÉÉãÉ ºÉä, VÉ¤É ºÉä nä¶É xÉä BÉE®nÉiÉÉ+ÉÉäÆ BÉEÉä lÉÉä½É nںɮÉÒ xÉVÉ® ºÉä näJÉxÉÉ ¶ÉÖ°ô ÉÊBÉEªÉÉ cè iÉ¤É ºÉä ªÉc ¤ÉÉiÉ ¤ÉÉ®-¤ÉÉ® VÉ°ô® +ÉÉiÉÉÒ cè ÉÊBÉE càÉå BÉE® |ɶÉɺÉxÉ BÉEÉä ºÉÆ´ÉänxɶÉÉÒãÉ ¤ÉxÉÉxÉÉ cè, ]èBÉDºÉ {ÉäªÉºÉÇ BÉEÉä AäºÉÉ xÉÉàÉ näxÉÉ cè ÉÊVÉºÉ àÉå ]èBÉDºÉ näxÉÉ ABÉE |ÉèÉκ]VÉ BÉEÉÒ ¤ÉÉiÉ cÉä VÉÉA, <VVÉiÉ BÉEÉÒ ¤ÉÉiÉ cÉä VÉÉA ãÉäÉÊBÉExÉ +ÉÉVÉ £ÉÉÒ ºÉiªÉ +ÉÉè® BªÉÉ´ÉcÉÉÊ®BÉE °ô{É àÉå ªÉc ¤ÉÉiÉ xÉcÉÓ cÉä {ÉÉiÉÉÒ cè* àÉé VÉÉxÉiÉÉ cÚÆ ÉÊBÉE ÉÊ´ÉkÉ àÉÆjÉÉÒ VÉÉÒ <xÉ ºÉ¤É SÉÉÒVÉÉå BÉEÉä ¤ÉJÉÚ¤ÉÉÒ VÉÉxÉiÉä cé* ´Éc =xÉ ºÉÉ®ä |ÉÉ´ÉvÉÉxÉÉå BÉEÉä £ÉÉÒ VÉÉxÉiÉä cé, VÉcÉÆ-VÉcÉÆ ÉÊnBÉDBÉEiÉå cÉäiÉÉÒ cé +ÉÉè® =xÉ iÉàÉÉàÉ BªÉÉ´ÉcÉÉÊ®BÉE {ÉcãÉÖ+ÉÉäÆ BÉEÉä £ÉÉÒ VÉÉxÉiÉä cé VÉcÉÆ +ÉÉàÉ xÉÉMÉÉÊ®BÉE BÉEÉä BÉEcÉÓ xÉ BÉEcÉÓ BÉE® näxÉä àÉå ªÉÉ BÉE® näxÉä BÉEä ¤ÉÉn +É{ÉxÉä BÉEÉä +ÉÉìxÉèº] |ÉÚ´É BÉE®xÉä àÉå ÉÊnBÉDBÉEiÉ cÉäiÉÉÒ cè* àÉé ÉÊ´ÉxÉ©ÉiÉÉ ºÉä ABÉE ÉÊxÉ´ÉänxÉ BÉE°ôÆMÉÉ ÉÊBÉE =xÉ {ÉcãÉÖ+ÉÉäÆ BÉEÉä £ÉÉÒ näJÉÉ VÉÉA, VÉcÉÆ-VÉcÉÆ BÉEº]àÉ bªÉÚ]ÉÒ näxÉä BÉEÉÒ ¤ÉÉiÉ cè ªÉÉ ¤É½ä <xÉBÉEàÉ ]èBÉDºÉ näxÉä ´ÉÉãÉÉå BÉEÉÒ ¤ÉÉiÉ cè* =xÉBÉEä {ÉÉºÉ FÉàÉiÉÉAÆ cÉäiÉÉÒ cé* AäºÉä BÉE<Ç BªÉ´ÉºÉÉÉʪɪÉÉå BÉEÉä VÉÉä {ÉÚ®ä fÉÆSÉä BÉEÉä VªÉÉnÉ +ÉSUÉÒ iÉ®c ºÉàÉZÉiÉä cé, =xÉBÉEä {ÉÉºÉ {ÉÚ®ä +ÉÆvÉä®ä àÉå BÉE<Ç ]ÉìSÉæ cÉäiÉÉÒ cé VÉÉä =xcå ®Éä¶ÉxÉÉÒ ÉÊnJÉÉ näiÉÉÒ cé* +ÉÉàÉ xÉÉMÉÉÊ®BÉEÉå BÉEÉä VÉÉÒ´ÉxÉ àÉå BÉEcÉÓ xÉ BÉEcÉÓ AäºÉä BÉE® |ɶÉɺÉBÉEÉå BÉEä ºÉÉlÉ ÉÊàÉãÉxÉÉ {ɽiÉÉ cè, ÉÊVÉxcå ÉÊàÉãÉxÉÉ àÉÖÉζBÉEãÉ cÉäiÉÉ cè* àÉÉxÉxÉÉÒªÉ ÉÊ´ÉkÉ àÉÆjÉÉÒ VÉÉÒ <xÉ ºÉ¤É SÉÉÒVÉÉå BÉEÉä àÉxÉ àÉå ®JÉiÉä cÖA +ÉÉè® £ÉÉÒ AäºÉä |ÉÉ´ÉvÉÉxÉ ãÉÉAÆ* àÉé VÉÉxÉiÉÉ cÚÆ ÉÊBÉE ºÉnxÉ ºÉà{ÉÚhÉÇ °ô{É ºÉä =xÉBÉEÉ ºÉàÉlÉÇxÉ BÉE®äMÉÉ*
इस बिल को लाने के लिए वित्त मंत्री को सही में धन्यवाद मिलना चाहिए और अभिनन्दन होना चाहिए।
प्रो. महादेवराव शिवनकर (चिमूर) : àÉÉxÉxÉÉÒªÉ ={ÉÉvªÉFÉ àÉcÉänªÉ, ÉÊSÉnà¤É®àÉ VÉÉÒ nä¶É BÉEä ABÉE àÉÉxÉä cÖA +ÉlÉǶÉɺjÉÉÒ cé* ªÉc ÉʤÉãÉ ãÉÉxÉä ºÉä BÉEÉä<Ç ¤ÉcÖiÉ ¤É½É ãÉÉ£É cÉäMÉÉ, AäºÉÉ àÉÖZÉä xÉcÉÓ ãÉMÉiÉÉ cè* àÉéxÉä VÉÉxɤÉÚZÉ BÉE® ªÉc ¶É¤n |ɪÉÉäMÉ ÉÊBÉEªÉÉ BÉDªÉÉåÉÊBÉE =xcÉåxÉä ÉÊ{ÉUãÉä BÉE<Ç ´ÉÉÉæ àÉå BÉEÉ{ÉEÉÒ ºÉ{ÉEãÉ BÉEÉàÉ ÉÊBÉEªÉÉ lÉÉ ãÉäÉÊBÉExÉ +ÉÉVÉBÉEãÉ =xÉBÉEä nɪÉå-¤ÉɪÉå BÉEä ãÉÉäMÉ =xÉBÉEÉä BÉEÉàÉ BÉE®xÉä xÉcÉÓ nä ®cä cé* <ºÉBÉEä BÉEÉ®hÉ =xÉBÉEä {ÉMÉ àÉå +ɺÉ{ÉEãÉiÉÉ +ÉÉ MÉ<Ç cè*
एक माननीय सदस्य: दायें या बायें, कौन से ऐसे लोग हैं?
प्रो. महादेवराव शिवनकर : यह आप पर छोड़ देता हूं। मैं यह बता रहा था कि मुझे ऐसा लगता है कि देश की कर प्रणाली सरल बनाने की द्ृष्टि से यह बिल लाया गया है मगर वस्तु स्थिति ऐसी हैं कि जिस प्रकार अलग-अलग स्थानों में टैक्सेशन है, उससे करदाता भी त्रस्त हैं। महानगरों से इस बात को शुरू करें। वहां टोल टैक्स, सेल्स टैक्स, सर्विस टैक्स होता है। फिर आगे चल कर प्रत्यक्ष कर में इनकम टैक्स अलग-अलग प्रणाली का होने से करदाताओं को घुटने टेकने पड़ते हैं। क्या इस देश में कर का संकलन एक ही स्थान पर हो, इसके लिए हम एक प्रणाली को स्वीकार कर सकते हैं? इजराइल में नगर का कर हो, स्टेट का कर हो या सेंटर का कर हो, एक ही स्थान पर पूरे कर को एकत्रित करके डिस्ट्रीब्यूशन करने की प्रणाली है। इस प्रणाली में कुल कितना टैक्स दें यह करदाता को प्रत्यक्ष और अप्रत्यक्ष रूप से मालूम होता है। लेकिन यहां प्रत्यक्ष कर के कारण जेब से जितना पैसा जाता है और जब करदाता का बजट अपसेट हो जाता है तब इसके बारे में करदाता चिंतित होता है। उसके बाद सरकार राजस्व चोरी की बात को कबूल करती है। माननीय मंत्री महोदय, राजीव गांधी जी ने कहा था कि जो खर्चा एक्सपेंडिचर साइड में होता है, दस परसेंट लोगों तक पहुंचता है। इसका मतलब है कि नब्बे प्रतिशत ब्लैक मनी तैयार होता है। क्या आपको लगता है कि इस प्रणाली में जिस स्कीम को बनाने का प्रयास किया है, इससे ब्लैक मनी पर पूरा कंट्रोल कर सकेंगे, क्योंकि जिस देश में पैरलल ब्लैक मनी चलता है वहां टैक्स प्रणाली और सारे कानून धरे के धरे रह जाते हैं। क्या हम ऐसा विचार कर सकते हैं? मैं इसके नमित्त इस सदन का और सरकार का आहवान करता हूं कि चार-छ: महीने विचार करके इस संबध में एक ऐसी प्रणाली ढूढ़ें जिसमें पैरलल ब्लैक मनी देश से वाश आउट हो जाए। इस संबंध में स्वतंत्रता प्राप्ति के बाद कई बार प्रयत्न हुए हैं कि जिनके पास ब्लैक मनी है, उन्हें प्रोत्साहन देकर वाइट करने का प्रयत्न किया गया है। लेकिन वह हुआ नहीं है, उसका कोई हल नहीं निकला, कोई परिणाम नहीं निकला। मुझे लगता है बल्कि टैक्स की चोरी में विश्व के गिने चुने देशों में अपने देश का नाम सबसे ऊपर होगा। इस कारण से देश की सारी अर्थव्यवस्था बर्बाद होती है। मुझे लगता है कि इस बहाने ही हम इस संबंध में कुछ विचार करें। हम पहले ही सोच लेते हैं कि वह करदाता चोर है और यहीं से शुरूआत करके उल्टे ढंग से इम्पलीमेंट करना चाहते हैं। इसलिए हम उस पर ऐसे विचार करें और उसका आहवान करें।
जहां तक इस आहवान का सवाल है। अभी माननीय सदस्य ने कहा कि इनकम टैक्स ऑफिस जाने से भय लगता है। लोगों के मन में जो भय अधिकारियों के संबंध में है, अगर हमने यह भय उनके मन से निकाल दिया और टैक्स भरने के लिए लोगों को प्रवृत्त किया, टैक्स की प्रणाली सरल कर दिया तो साठ, सत्तर, अस्सी या पच्चासी परसेंट टैक्स मिलेगा। यह सब टैक्स अलग प्रकार से चुकता हो जाता है। जो कुछ आपको लेना है वह एक जगह इकट्ठा कीजिए। आपको इसका परिणाम अच्छा दिखेगा और लोगों को भी मालूम होगा कि कितने परसेंट टैक्स अप्रत्यक्ष और प्रत्यक्ष रूप से जाता है।
माननीय मंत्री महोदय, मैं इससे हटकर दो-तीन बातें कहना चाहूंगा। आपने बजट में अर्बन कोऑपरेटिव बैंक पर दो परसेंट टैक्स लगाया। आप इस पर पुनर्विचार करें और शांति से विचार करें। यह अर्बन कोऑपरेटिव बैंक की बात है मैंने इसलिए कहा कि मैं अलग हटकर बात कहूंगा। अर्बन कोऑपरेटिव बैंक वास्तविक प्रॉफिट मेकिंग बैंक नहीं हैं, वे प्रॉफिट मेकिंग इंस्टीटयूशन्स नहीं हैं, ये बैंक लोगों की सेवाएं करने की द्ृष्टि से हैं। उनका नियंत्रण होना चाहिए, मैं इस बात को मानता है लेकिन नियंत्रण अलग ढंग से किया जा सकता है। केवल टैक्स लगा दिया इसलिए एकाउंट बुक अपने पास आएगी, यह समझना गलत होगा। आपने चैरिटेबल ट्रस्ट पर टैक्स लगाया, तब हम लोगों ने कहा था कि इस पर टैक्स मत लगाइये। आपने इसे निकाल दिया, तब आपने हमारी बात नहीं सुनी। आपको लगता है कि इन छोटी-छोटी बातों से आपका खजाना भर जायेगा। ऐसा नहीं होगा, बल्कि इससे खजाना खाली होने की प्रक्रिया शुरू होगी।
तीसरी बात, मैं कोऑपरेटिव बैंक्स के संबंध में कहना चाहता हूं। कोऑपरेटिव बैक्स पर भी आपका कोई नियंत्रण नहीं है। मैं इस विधेयक से हटकर यह बात कह रहा हूं। कोऑपरेटिव बैंक्स के संबंध में आपने देश में घोषित किया कि सात परसैन्ट रेट ऑफ इंटरैस्ट होगा। लेकिन वह नहीं हुआ। हमने सुझाव दिया था कि स्टेट कोऑपरेटिव बैंक्स को आप केवल बैंक के रूप में कार्य करने दे और उसके डिस्ट्रीब्यूशन सिस्टम के जो अधिकार है जैसे स्टेट कोऑपरेटिव बैंक, डिस्टि्रक्ट कोऑपरेटिव बैंक, प्राइमरी कोऑपरेटिव सोसाइटी, इनमें से एक स्टेज आप कम करें। लेकिन माननीय मंत्री जी आपने इस संबंध में कुछ नहीं सोचा। आपको इस संबंध में जो सरलता लानी चाहिए थी, उस संबंध में आप कुछ नहीं कर रहे हैं। मगर इस पर करने का आप जो प्रयत्न कर रहे हैं, उससे मुझे ऐसा लगता है कि अंत में असफलता ही आपके हाथ लगेगी। मैं समझता हूं कि टैक्स सरलीकरण के संबंध में आप एक एक्सपर्ट कमेटी गठित कीजिए और उस कमेटी के आधार पर कार्य कीजिए। जैसे ही आप फाइनैन्स मनिस्टर बने थे, आपने एक टास्क फोर्स कमेटी गठित की थी। लेकिन उसका कोई परिणाम नहीं निकला। बल्कि आपने कह दिया कि कोऑपरेटिव बैंक स्टेट सब्जैक्ट है। इस तरह से आपने उसे झटका दे दिया। मुझे ऐसा लगता है कि यह सरलता के नाम पर देश को धोखा देने वाली बात होगी, अंतरात्मा को धोखा देने वाली बात होगी। इसलिए आप इस पर नये ढंग से अध्ययन करें। इस बात का आहवान करते हुए मैं अपना वक्तव्य यहीं समाप्त करता हूं।
MR. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: Shri Rupchand Pal.
SHRI P. CHIDAMBARAM: Please be brief.
उपाध्यक्ष महोदय : मैं भी इस बिल को चार बजे के पहले पास करना चाहता हूं। I have one more speaker to speak on this.
SHRI RUPCHAND PAL (HOOGHLY): I would not take much time. I support the Bill.
As promised, the Minister has brought certain amendments in the Taxation laws. I think in the coming days also he will have to look afresh into certain more areas. On the philosophy of taxation, this is not the occasion or the right time to have our views spelt out.
Second area is the mechanism to plug the loopholes, to stop wide spread tax evasion that is taking place both in direct and indirect taxes. Some of the measures proposed will be only helpful to the Government.
There are certain grey areas, for example, the recommendations of the Standing Committee are also there. So far as recommendation number 40 is concerned, it is about the payment to be made with regard to the charitable institutions and others. I agree to what has been said in the Bill that it should be in the form of account payee cheques and drafts. What will happen if it happens to be the electronic clearing system?
If we look at the current scenario, IPO scam is taking place. Specific instruction, ‘Know your Customer ‘ is given. In a single day thousands of accounts are opened in the same address. Sometimes the names are borrowed from the slums. This can happen in a civilised country. If I go to open an account, I require a photograph, Identity Card, Pan and all that. In the face of all this, what is happening? One of the measures to control the tax evasion is ATR. It provides a revealing picture about the scenario in India. Out of 18 lakh transactions, we find that 30 per cent of them did have any PAN card. They were not told by the banks or anyone else that PAN is a must. So, whatever is proposed, at the stage of implementation we find there is laxity.
So, the administrative set up needs to be strengthened, not by computerisation alone. Computerisation, of course, is one of the dependable measures but at the same time deployment of skilled personnel and their use is also important.
In the course of the visits of our important Committee meetings, we have been told that important posts in the tax administration are lying vacant for months and years together. Naturally, when these amendments have been proposed, I support them. I think — the hon. Minister, I hope would not mind my saying this – these are half-hearted and ad-hocmeasures. These are reactive, rather than being pro-active. The Government has to take into account not only the capital market, but also other institutions like the banks and the charitable trusts. The charitable institutions are being misused like anything. We had raised this issue very many times. This is one important area. However, now I welcome and appreciate the measures that have been proposed through this amending Bill. The hon. Minister has accepted some of the suggestions given by us. But still I would say that these are half-hearted measures. I have no time to give illustrations, otherwise I could have given him umpteen numbers instances to show how these charitable institutions are exploiting the situations. Take the case of the private hospitals. Just one room is being given for research purposes and in the name of research these hospitals are availing of all the concessions.
Sir, I believe this UPA Government is sincere in its approach and the hon. Minister himself is a very serious person and he would certainly look into the suggestions given by us. Some of our suggestions are not being paid heed to at the right time. I hope, he will listen to all our suggestions and bring forward a comprehensive legislative changes in the whole set up of income tax, customs, central excise. Some of the provisions in these Acts have become archaic in these days in terms of philosophy, in terms of approach, in terms of administrative mechanism and in terms of technology as well.
Sir, while I extend support to this Bill, I would hope that in the coming days the Government would bring forward a full-fledged comprehensive amendment Bill including all the suggestions proposed by us as he has only proposed half-hearted measures through this amending Bill.
MR DEPUTY SPEAKER : Shri Mahatab, would you like to make some suggestions?
SHRI B. MAHTAB (CUTTACK): Sir, this is a very important Bill in the sense that a lot of changes have been proposed keeping in tune with the time. This Bill deals with Direct Taxes, Indirect Taxes and the provisions in this Bill proposes to carry out amendments in the Income Tax Act, 1961, Customs Act, 1962, Custom Tariff Act, 1975, Central Excise Act, 1944, Central Sales Tax, 1956. The object is to rationalise and simplify certain procedure, widen the tax base and plug the loopholes leading to leakage of revenue. These are the three main objectives and yet we know how many Members have shown interest to discuss it in this House, though the Standing Committee on Finance has dealt with these aspects in details and other things also, yet these three aspects of widening the tax base, plugging the loopholes and rationalising and simplifying the tax system would continue to be deliberated upon in future as well.
Sir, I should thank the hon. Minister that he has brought forward such a Bill. Some mind has been applied and certain steps are being proposed to be taken. This reminds me of a statement made by a famous legal luminary, namely, Shri Nani Palkiwala — “I believe that no civil servant should be allowed to work in the Finance Ministry unless he has taken a foundational course with emphasis on truth.” Whatever has been spoken today in this House, this very basic element should be adhered to because of the amount of fear that has been expressed by the hon. Member and repeated by another expert in Finance and also by Shri Rupchand Pal. They have all mentioned the same thing. If you are dealing with direct tax or indirect tax, a little element of truth is necessary by those who are manning that Ministry. Here I would like to say that these are wise words and the intention is to amend certain lacunae and tighten the tax administration. No law, least of all a tax legislation, is unchangeable specially in a civil society which has found its moorings in a democratic system of governance. But the amendments to the Income Tax Act, 1961 said to number over 5000 since enactment have today made even the seasoned tax practitioner quail at the thought of sifting through them and all these changes in an Act which has as many as 298 sections. This needs serious attention. It can safely be said that no other piece of legislation in India has seen so many changes. Surely, laws need additions and alterations. But changes made on trial and error basis are certainly not healthy. And looking at the scale of change in the Income Tax Act, one wonders if all that is done on the plea of rationalisation and simplification has added to confusion.
The Raja Chelliah Committee on tax reforms has stated that in order to judge what kind of changes should be brought about, we must look the root causes for the present unsatisfactory state of affairs in the field of tax administration and one such cause is recurrent changes in the law brought about at the budget time. It is generally conceived in secrecy and proposed and enacted without adequate public consultation and debate.
The most irritating exercise in the opinion of both the tax expert and the assessee is that of amending the rates and granting exemptions throughout the year by issuing notification. Prof. Chelliah says that the tax system and its burden must be acceptable to the citizens, that is, the potential tax payers.
A simple tax system ideally should have only a limited number of rates and exemptions or deductions and offer the least possible discretionary power to the tax officials for interpreting the law. Today the problem in direct tax is, it becomes a very subjective decision of the one who interprets sitting on the other side of the table. That is why, many cases are pending in different courts at different levels. Crores and crores of rupees are being held up because of that.
Due to paucity of time, I am not going into indirect taxes. In direct taxes, I think there is a need to have a relook. I would conclude by saying that tax reforms is too serious a matter to be dealt with by politicians and lawyers. But economists and experts in the field should have a say.
श्रीमती जयाबहन बी. ठक्कर (वडोदरा) : ={ÉÉvªÉFÉ VÉÉÒ, àÉÉxÉxÉÉÒªÉ ÉÊ´ÉkÉ àÉÆjÉÉÒ VÉÉÒ xÉä BÉE®ÉvÉÉxÉ ÉÊ´ÉÉÊvÉ (ºÉƶÉÉävÉxÉ) ÉÊ´ÉvÉäªÉBÉE, 2005 ºÉnxÉ àÉå |ɺiÉÖiÉ ÉÊBÉEªÉÉ cè* àÉé <ºÉ ºÉÆn£ÉÇ àÉå VÉÉxÉxÉÉ SÉÉciÉÉÒ cÚÆ ÉÊBÉE BÉDªÉÉ càÉÉ®ä nä¶É àÉå £ÉÉÒ AäºÉÉ BÉE®ÉvÉÉxÉ BÉE® ºÉBÉEiÉä cé VÉèºÉÉ +ÉxªÉ nä¶ÉÉå àÉå cÉäiÉÉ cè? +ÉxªÉ nä¶ÉÉå àÉå |ÉVÉÉ VÉÉä BÉE® näiÉÉÒ cè, =ºÉBÉEä ¤ÉÉn ´ÉcÉÆ BÉEä VÉÉä ¤É½ä ¤ÉÖVÉÖMÉÇ cé +ÉÉè® ¤ÉSSÉÉå BÉEä ÉÊãɪÉä £ÉÉÒ VÉÉä ]èBÉDºÉ {ÉèªÉºÉÇ cé, =xÉBÉEä ÉÊãɪÉä BÉDªÉÉ AäºÉÉ BÉEÉä<Ç |ÉÉ´ÉvÉÉxÉ càÉ BÉE® ºÉBÉEiÉä cé ªÉÉ xÉcÉÓ?
SHRI P. CHIDAMBARAM : Mr. Deputy-Speaker, Sir, I am grateful to hon. Members for the broad support they have given to this Bill. As I said, I could have made several provisions of this Bill part of the Finance Bill. In fact, it would have gone unnoticed. But that would have been unfair. The Finance Bill, as it is, is a complicated piece of legislation. And to add a number of house keeping amendments to that Bill would be burdening the Bill and to really get it passed without the application of mind. So, I said in my Budget speech I will introduce a separate Taxation Laws (Amendment) Bill.
We have spent months zeroing in on the amendments which are absolutely necessary in the Income Tax Act, in the Customs Act and in the Central Excise Act. That is how this Bill was prepared. I think a separate Taxation Laws (Amendment) Bill gave an opportunity to the Standing Committee to deliberate at great length on this and give its Report. The Standing Committee has deliberated on this Bill and has given its 27th Report. Meetings of the Committee were held on 14th July, 6th September, 29th September, 30th September, 8th November, and 8th December, 2005. Evidence was taken, experts were called, Chartered Accountants were called, and a long Report running to almost 41 pages has been given. Therefore, it would not be correct to say that this is a half-hearted approach. This is a full-hearted approach, with full application of mind. As time goes on, surely more amendments will be required. Please remember that the assessee is one step ahead of the Government. Therefore, as and when we find that there are administrative difficulties, we will have to plug those difficulties; as and when tax laws are being changed, tax rates are being changed, some corrections would have to be made. But I believe that at least for the time being we have taken note of the major lacunae and the major bottlenecks in tax administration and we are dealing with these bottlenecks and lacunae.
Of course, there are problems with paying taxes. Nobody likes to pay taxes. But we will have to change that culture. In Europe, for example, everybody happily pays taxes because taxes are spent wisely and taxes are spent for the purpose for which they are meant. But when people find that taxes are not spent wisely or money is being wasted, then people develop a resistance to pay taxes. So, tax compliance will improve only when Government exhibits prudence and wisdom in spending the money collected as taxes. If people see that their taxes work, then they will pay taxes better. But that is entering into philosophical issues and I will reserve all that for another occasion. Today I am very keen that the Bill is passed. I am grateful to hon. Members for their support.
On the IPO scam we can have a separate discussion. I will deal with the scam. There was failure and collusion at three levels. We are taking strong action. Nobody can say that we have not taken the strongest action. We have taken the strongest action in the IPO scam. Nobody will be spared.
So, I would request that the Bill with the amendments that I have moved and will move be passed.
MR. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: The question is:
“That the Bill further to amend the Income Tax Act, 1961, the Customs Act, 1962, the Customs Tariff Act, 1975, the Central Excise Act, 1944 and the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956, be taken into consideration. ”
The motion was adopted.
MR. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: The House will now take up clause-by-clause consideration of the Bill.
“That clauses 2 to 4 stand part of the Bill.”
The motion was adopted.
Clauses 2 to 4 were added to the Bill.
Clause 5 Amendment of Section 35
Page 3, for lines 6 and 7, substitute—
“5. In the Income-tax Act, in section 35, with effect from the 1st day of April, 2006, —
(i) in sub-section (1),–“. (4)
Page 3, after line 24, insert–
‘(c) after clause (iii), the following Explanation shall be inserted, namely:-
“Explanation.–The deduction, to which the assessee is entitled in respect of any sum paid to a scientific research association, university, college or other institution to which clause (ii) or clause (iii) applies, shall not be denied merely on the ground that, subsequent to the payment of such sum by the assessee, the approval granted to the association, university, college or other institution referred to in clause (ii) or clause (iii) has been withdrawn;”;”. (5)
Page 3, line 25, for “(c)”, substitute “(d)”. (6)
Page 3, line 27, for “(d)”, substitute “(e)”. (7)
Page 3, line 34, for “(e)”, substitute “(f)”. (8)
Page 3, after line 41, insert–
‘(ii) in sub-section (2AA), the Explanation shall be numbered as Explanation 2 thereof and before the Explanation 2 as so numbered, the following Explanation shall be inserted, namely:–
“Explanation 1.–The deduction, to which the assessee is entitled in respect of any sum paid to a National Laboratory, University, Indian Institute of Technology or a specified person for the approved programme referred to in this sub-section, shall not be denied merely on the ground that, subsequent to the payment of such sum by the assessee, the approval granted to,–
(a) such Laboratory, or specified person has been withdrawn; or
(b) the programme, undertaken by the National Laboratory, University, Indian Institute of Technology or specified person has been withdrawn.”.’. (9)
(Shri P. Chidambaram)
MR. DEPTUTY-SPEAKER: The question is:
“That clause 5, as amended, stand part of the Bill.”
The motion was adopted.
Clause 5, as amended, was added to the Bill.