PPF forgot to contribute for this year.?



I forgot to contribute to my providend fund last year. will my account become inactive. Can i restart from this year. will they allow me to contribute this year.

PPF forgot to contribute for this year.?
Rate these answers

2 Replies to “PPF forgot to contribute for this year.?”

  1. Always write Provident instead of Providend

    Well, I have understood your question.

    An individual can open a Public Provident Fund Account in his own name. He can also open an additional account on behalf of each minor of whom he is the guardian. He can subscribe any amount in multiples of Rs. 5 of not less than Rs. 100 and not more than Rs. 60,000 in a year in each of his account. A year for the purpose of the scheme means a financial year (April 1 to March 31)”. (emphasis supplied)
    This is the book available in most post offices and banks. This was the practice followed by post offices and banks. It is only after the amendment to the Form, A. N. Dureja’s book (sixth edition) as corrected up to March 1, 2001 substitutes the above paragraph by placing a limit with reference to the aggregate.
    Audit did not find anything wrong year after year in considering the ceiling account-wise, when it pointed out to other defects.
    The general understanding of the public was that one can deposit Rs. 60,000 in each account, which is authorised to be opened. Tax relief may be limited to total amount of Rs. 60,000 between individual and the minor children. Actually, where minor children are assessable on their own efforts, the limit can be separate even for income tax purposes. It is understood that there has been no refusal of acceptance of deposits on excess over Rs. 60,000, since such refusal was understood as possible only account-wise and not assessee-wise or for that matter between individual and minors.
    If collective limit has to be inferred, there should have been no insistence of minimum balance of Rs. 100 for each account, because the minimum limit should have also been collective one.
    This minimum requirement is strictly observed account-wise, so that interest is charged for arrears when any year is missed. What applies for minimum balance should apply for maximum as well.
    What happens, if an individual does not open an account in his own name but opens two different accounts in the name of his two minor children? How can this aggregate ceiling be applied even on the basis of new undertaking in the new form which clubs only individual account with minor children and not of minor children among them. Since both father and mother can be legal guardians, what would happen, if father and mother hold accounts of two or more different children? How is the ceiling to be applied?
    What happens when minor has his own income entitled to separate income tax assessment, so that such income may not be clubbed at all.
    If the ceiling were to be applied collectively, all these contingencies would have been provided for. What has happened is that only application has been modified by the notification dated December 6, 2000. Such application cannot override the scheme. The application and the scheme cannot override the Act.
    Where the accounts are opened by the same person in two branches of the same bank or two different banks or two different post offices, little could be done by these banks and post offices to prevent excess deposit in the aggregate. Even where the accounts are in the same branch or post office, there has been no instruction till date to the persons in charge at any time of this requirement for collective ceiling between the individual and his minor children.
    It is only the new application, which will also be understood only by persons opening the new accounts that there is any suggestion that the excess ceiling will be reckoned as to the total of amount deposited in accounts maintained by the individual and minor children.
    The Board’s Circular No. 6P of 1968 dated July 6, 1968 in para 37, reads: `An individual may subscribe to the fund on his own behalf and also on behalf of the minor, of whom he is the guardian’, indicating that the Board’s understanding of the scheme was also that ceiling would apply for each. The circular proceeds to specify the maximum amount of Rs. 15,000 (as it then was) without the least indication, whether the maximum is several or collective. If it was to be collective, one would have expected that it would have been necessary to draw the attention of the taxpayer in the circular. But where minor’s income is aggregated with that of the guardian either under Sec. 64 or otherwise, the collective limit prevails not because of any bar under the Provident Fund Act or the Scheme but because of the tax provision. The new form itself has not come into practice as it has not been publicised. The further question whether the undertaking in the new form will apply to accounts opened earlier, when there was no such undertaking would also arise. It is better that the entire matter is considered de novo by the Ministry of Economic Affairs. If the intention is that the ceiling should be collective between individual and minor children consistent with income tax law, it is better that the Act and the material part of the scheme are amended and the same implemented prospectively after g


  2. you can restart from this year, your a/c will not be inactive,you have to pay extra amount other then your contribution,i.e the interest and the penalty only





Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *