The issues of housing insecurity among the urban poor and genuine hardships faced by honest taxpayers are not abstract policy concerns; they are lived realities for thousands of families in Jammu & Kashmir. By raising these matters in the Rajya Sabha, Sat Sharma placed two pressing public-interest questions squarely before the nation—questions that go to the heart of social justice and administrative fairness.
Urban homelessness in Jammu & Kashmir demands urgent attention. With only two operational shelter homes across the Union Territory, the scale of institutional support is clearly inadequate. While the construction of 19,375 houses over the past three years is a step forward, the pace does not match the magnitude of need—especially in urban areas where migration, rising rents, and informal settlements have intensified vulnerability. Housing is more than a physical structure; it is the foundation for dignity, safety, health, and social inclusion. Without secure shelter, access to education, employment, and healthcare remains fragile. Parliament’s debate must therefore translate into accelerated construction, expanded shelters, and time-bound implementation that leaves no deserving family without a roof.
Equally important is the second issue raised: the unintended consequences of recent amendments to the Income-tax Act affecting TDS corrections. The six-year limit introduced by the Finance (No. 2) Act, 2024—effective April 1, 2025—has closed the correction window for earlier financial years, leaving taxpayers unable to rectify genuine errors such as PAN mismatches or challan discrepancies. The result is a cascade of avoidable problems: non-credit of TDS in Form 26AS, inflated tax demands, delayed refunds, penalties, interest, and unnecessary litigation—despite taxes having been duly deducted and deposited.
Tax administration must distinguish between evasion and error. When compliance is penalized due to technicalities, trust in the system erodes. The proposal for a one-time relief or special condonation window, using the flexibility already available under Section 119 of the Income-tax Act, is both reasonable and pragmatic. It would protect honest taxpayers while preserving the integrity of revenue collection.
Both issues underscore a common principle: governance works best when policy intent aligns with on-ground realities. Parliamentary interventions are essential, but their value lies in outcomes. Housing security for the urban poor and fairness for compliant taxpayers are not partisan demands—they are democratic imperatives. The government must now move from acknowledgment to action, ensuring that debates in the House culminate in tangible relief for citizens. Only then will Parliament fulfill its promise as the people’s forum.
Chief Editor
Diplomat Digital
