Govt. expresses surprise at submission

The State government on Thursday expressed surprise over an out-of-the-blue claim by the Income Tax (I-T) department that four of former Chief Minister Jayalalithaa’s immovable properties — her Poes Garden residence Veda Nilayam, a commercial space at Parsn Manere on Anna Salai, another property on St. Mary’s Road here and a residence in Hyderabad’s Sri Nagar Colony — were under attachment since 2007.

Appearing before a Division Bench of Justices Vineet Kothari and Anita Sumanth, Advocate General (AG) Vijay Narayan said that the government was not aware of any such attachment and that it was indeed news to him.

The submission was made after A.P. Srinivas, senior standing counsel for the I-T department, submitted details of Jayalalithaa’s tax dues as well as a list of properties that were under attachment.

The details were furnished in response to PIL petitions filed by activist ‘Traffic’ K.R. Ramaswamy and another individual against the use of taxpayers’ money to acquire Veda Nilayam and convert it into a memorial.

During the last hearing of the case, the judges had directed the I-T department to respond as to whether it had any objection to the proposed acquisition of Veda Nilayam by the government.

Accordingly, G. Shoba, Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2(2), Chennai, filed a counter-affidavit along with an annexure stating that as on December 31, 2018, the former CM’s wealth tax dues, including interest for the assessment years 1990-91 to 2011-12, was around ₹10.12 crore. The official also said she had income tax dues of ₹6.62 crore for the assessment years 2005-06 to 2011-12.

Return not filed

In so far as the properties under attachment were concerned, she claimed that the Poes Garden residence got attached on March 13, 2007. The Division Bench was also told that the former Chief Minister had declared total income of ₹1.27 crore for the assessment year 2016-17 and paid advance tax of ₹31.3 lakh, apart from ₹15.08 lakh towards tax deducted at source (TDS). However, no return was filed for 2017-18 by her legal heirs.

“I submit that the Income Tax department is concerned with the assessment and recovery of taxes under the direct tax laws and therefore does not have any view in the prayer sought by the writ petitioner,” the official stated. However, taking exception to such a “vague” submission”, Justice Kothari said that the department should make its stand clear as to whether it had any objection to acquisition of Veda Nilayam by the government.

The A-G said that he would find out if the government could legally acquire an attached property. If the law permits such an acquisition, “then we could even deposit the compensation amount with the Income Tax department” and go ahead with the plan to convert the house into a memorial, he said and suggested that Jayalalithaa’s niece J. Deepa and nephew J. Deepak could also be heard before taking a call on the issue. After hearing them, the judges adjourned the case for two weeks so that the I-T department could come up with a clear stand as to whether it was agreeable to permit the acquisition in lieu of depositing the due amount.