08-15-2011, 03:32 PM
good point - appreciable
However applying same ratio, in the case of employment of only one month with new employer within a tax year, if one employer has paid you salary for 11 months he will file your particulars in Annual Statement of Deduction of Tax while the other who has not deducted any tax may not file your particulars in Annual statement of deduction.
So your point will squarely applies here. As his second employer will not file Annual statement so he will not fall within s115 but s.114.
Anyway there may be endless debate. To safeguard oneself I have already said that employer may take indemnity letter from previous employee. But I also say that there is nothing in income tax law that makes employee bound to submit complete information to employer about his previous employment. Secondly, this will be highly irrational approach to assume that employee was employed during all the preceding months of the tax year and further that he was employed on the same salary. I am strictly against any such presumption.
As law does not ask employer to ask for employee's previous employment
As law does not ask for any written thing to be handed over from employee to employer
So law cannot punish employer, as he may always say that employee has not disclosed his previous earnings.
If employer is not in a critical situation, then why should we over burden them with the responsibility which the law has not conferred upon them. If law does not ask us to do so, then why some of us without any legal backing say that employer having new employee at the end of tax year, should blindly assume that he had been drawing same salary for the last whole year and deduct tax accordingly. This is nothing but depriving an employee of his hard earned money, as he might have been unemployed, might be beginning his job or might have been employed at very low salary earlier.
Unless any new law point , judgment or SRO is brought forward I intend not to contribute further in this endless debate on mere surmises and conjectures.
However applying same ratio, in the case of employment of only one month with new employer within a tax year, if one employer has paid you salary for 11 months he will file your particulars in Annual Statement of Deduction of Tax while the other who has not deducted any tax may not file your particulars in Annual statement of deduction.
So your point will squarely applies here. As his second employer will not file Annual statement so he will not fall within s115 but s.114.
Anyway there may be endless debate. To safeguard oneself I have already said that employer may take indemnity letter from previous employee. But I also say that there is nothing in income tax law that makes employee bound to submit complete information to employer about his previous employment. Secondly, this will be highly irrational approach to assume that employee was employed during all the preceding months of the tax year and further that he was employed on the same salary. I am strictly against any such presumption.
As law does not ask employer to ask for employee's previous employment
As law does not ask for any written thing to be handed over from employee to employer
So law cannot punish employer, as he may always say that employee has not disclosed his previous earnings.
If employer is not in a critical situation, then why should we over burden them with the responsibility which the law has not conferred upon them. If law does not ask us to do so, then why some of us without any legal backing say that employer having new employee at the end of tax year, should blindly assume that he had been drawing same salary for the last whole year and deduct tax accordingly. This is nothing but depriving an employee of his hard earned money, as he might have been unemployed, might be beginning his job or might have been employed at very low salary earlier.
Unless any new law point , judgment or SRO is brought forward I intend not to contribute further in this endless debate on mere surmises and conjectures.