As per Section 139AA of the Income Tax Act, every person who has been allotted a Permenant Account Number (PAN) and who is eligible to obtain Aadhaar, shall intimate his Aadhaar number to the Income-tax department otherwise his PAN shall be inoperative. The deadline for linking of PAN and Aadhar had been extended several times and now the new deadline is March 31, 2020. So, if a person doesn’t link his PAN with Aadhar by the said date, his PAN shall be inoperative.
"However, it is to be noted that the validity of Aadhar Act is itself in question before the larger bench of the Supreme Court. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Rojer Mathew v. South Indian Bank Ltd. 2019, has referred the issue of ‘whether Aadhaar Act was rightly introduced as a 'Money Bill' for consideration by a Larger Bench.
The Gujarat High Court judgement states :“PAN of applicant shall not be declared inoperative and applicant would not be in default in any proceedings only for reason that permanent account number is not linked with Aadhaar or Aadhaar number is not quoted and applicant shall not be subjected to proviso to sub-section (2) of section 139AA till judgment of Supreme Court in Rojer Mathew v. South Indian Bank Ltd. and others in Civil Application No. 8588 of 2019 is delivered and available”
The judgement also states: "Upon an extensive examination of the matter, we notice that the majority in K.S. Puttaswamy (Aadhaar-5) pronounced the nature of the impugned enactment without first delineating the scope of Article 110(1) and principles for interpretation or the repercussions of such process. It is clear to us that the majority dictum in K.S. Puttaswamy (Aadhaar-5) did not substantially discuss the effect of the word ‘only’ in Article 110(1) and offers little guidance on the repercussions of a finding when some of the provisions of an enactment passed as a “Money Bill” do not conform to Article 110(1)(a) to (g). Its interpretation of the provisions of the Aadhaar Act was arguably liberal and the Court’s satisfaction of the said provisions being incidental to Article 110(1)(a) to (f), it has been argued is not convincingly reasoned, as might not be in accord with the bicameral Parliamentary system envisaged under our constitutional scheme. Without expressing a firm and final opinion, it has to be observed that the analysis in K.S. Puttaswamy (Aadhaar-5) 59 makes its application difficult to the present case and raises a potential conflict between the judgements of coordinate Benches."
"Given the various challenges made to the scope of judicial review and interpretative principles (or lack thereof) as adumbrated by the majority in K.S. Puttaswamy (Aadhaar-5) and the substantial precedential impact of its analysis of the Aadhaar Act, 2016, it becomes essential to determine its correctness. Being a Bench of equal strength as that in K.S. Puttaswamy (Aadhaar-5), we accordingly direct that this batch of matters be placed before Hon’ble the Chief Justice of India, on the administrative side, for consideration by a larger Bench."