It said the income tax is inherently biased against savings and it leads to double taxation in so far both the savings and the earnings are taxed.
"While there should be no tax incentive for savings, the question is what should be the tax treatment of savings so as to eliminate the inherent bias under income tax. The emerging wisdom is that savings should be taxed only at the point of contribution (TEE) or withdrawal (EET); the latter being the best international practice on several counts," the Survey said.
Besides, annual investments up to Rs 2 lakh in life insurance and NPS under Section 80C and 80CCD are exempt from taxes.
Giving reasoning for preferring EET (Exempt-Exempt-Tax) methods for taxing of savings, the Survey said it is extremely simple in terms of compliance and administration.
More From This Section
When a savings is exempt at the time of deposit and interest earnings and taxable at the time of withdrawal, it does not require a saver to maintain details of savings and earnings to claim tax benefit.
It also made a case for taxing post office small savings deposits according to the EET principle.
It said when the Budget 2014-15 hiked the investment limit in PPF by Rs 50,000, data analysis showed that mostly the tax payers in the top income brackets availed off the benefit.
Giving the disadvantage of taxing savings under the TEE (Tax-Exempt-Exempt) method, the Survey said there is no incentive for consumption smoothening since withdrawals are exempt irrespective of the amount.
However, the EET method allows for consumption smoothening particularly in old age since taxation of withdrawals incentivises postponement of consumption.
"Under a progressive personal income tax rate structure, there is an in-built incentive to restrict withdrawals to meet necessary consumption only since lower withdrawals imply taxation at lower marginal tax rate and hence, lower tax liability. Consequently, the potential for old-age poverty is minimised," it said.