419 AAMohanVsITDeptChennai23 07 5 1
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Room No.308, B wing, August Kranti Bhawan, Bhikaji Cama Place, New Delhi-110066
Appeal No. CIC/LS/A/2009/000419
Appellant: Shri A.A. Mohan
Public Authority: Income Tax Department, Chennai
(through Shri B.B. Rajendra Prasad,
Addl. CIT, Chennai)
Date of Hearing: 23/07/2009
Date of Decision: 23/07/2009
FACTS
:-
The matter, in short, is that a Company called M/s Maxworth Home Limited,
Chennai, owed certain Income Tax liabilities to the Income Tax Department. The
Income Tax Department attached property at plot Nos. 143 & 144, Maxworth Nagar,
Chennai, vide order dated 11/09/2006 under the belief that these plots were the properties
of the aforesaid Company. However, in the RTI application dated 04/06/2008, the
Appellant has pleaded that the above mentioned two plots belonged to him and his wife
and the Sale Deed dated 09/06/1997 was registered as Document No. 1824/1987 at Sub
Registrar’s Office at Pallavaram. He had asked the CPIO to intimate him the steps taken
by him to find out the real owners of the aforesaid plots and also why the attachment
should not be lifted.
2. The CPIO had disposed of the matter, vide letter dated 14/07/2008 without
mentioning anything about the steps taken by him to ascertain the real ownership of the
said plots. Some additional information was provided to the Appellant wherein it was
mentioned that on the basis of advertisement made by Maxworth Home Limited,
Chennai, in local newspapers etc., there was reason to believe that the said plots belonged
to the said Company.
3. The first Appeal was disposed of by the Appellate Authority vide order dated
03/11/2008, wherein, the decision of attachment passed by the CPIO was upheld.
The Appellate Authority, however, observed that if the Appellant had any personal
grievance regarding the attachment of the property, he could take remedial steps under
the provisions of the Income Tax Act.
4. The present Appeal is directed against the orders of the CPIO and the AA.
5. Heard on 23/07/2009. Appellant not present. Public Authority is represented by
the officer named above. It is the submission of Shri Rajender Prasad that pursuant to a
High court order, attachment have since been lifted vide TRO-VII’s order dated
25/06/2009. To that extent, the grievance of the Appellant stands redressed.
419 AAMohanVsITDeptChennai23 07 5 2
6. The matter, however, does end here. To us, it appears that the Appellant has a
genuine grievance inasmuch as the plots purportedly belonging to him have been attached
by the Income Tax authorities, even when he does not owe any tax liability to the
Department. It also appears to us that no genuine efforts were made by the Income Tax
authorities to determine whether the claim of the appellant was factually correct or not.
This does not speak well regarding the functioning of the officers concerned. The
Commission would say no more. Suffice to say that the Appellant has a genuine right
under the RTI Act to know as to why his property was attached, particularly when he had
also sent a copy of the Sale Deed dated 09/06/1997 to the Department. The response of
the CPIO & AA was dismaying.
DECISION
7. Regardless of what has been stated above, as the grievance of the Appellant
stands redressed, the Appeal has become infructuous and is, therefore, dismissed.
Sd/-
(M.L. Sharma)
Central Information Commissioner
Authenticated true copy. Additional copies of orders shall be supplied against application and payment of the charges,
prescribed under the Act, to the CPIO of this Commission.
(K.L. Das)
Assistant Registrar
Tele: 011 2671 73 53/Fax: 011 2610 62 76
Copy to:-(1) Shri A.A. Mohan, Ceebros Building, (2) Shri B.B. Rajendra Prasad,
D-4, III Floor, New No.32 (Old No.11), Addl.Commissioner of Income Tax
Cenotaph Road, Teynampet, Range-IV & AA,
Chennai-600018. 121, Mahatma Gandhi Road,,
Nungambakkam, Chennai-600034.
(2) The Tax Recovery Officer VII,
Company Range IV & CPIO,
121, Mahatma Gandhi Road,,
Nungambakkam, Chennai-600034.