2022 (8) TMI 1310 - HC - Income Tax

Seeking action on certain third parties - Income Tax Informants Rewards Scheme 2018 (in short Scheme ) in terms of which any good samaritan who believes that a third party is a tax evader may bring the same to the notice of the Department - HELD THAT - The petitioner refers to a suit filed by his wife against the third party. Neither the wife nor the third party are before us in this Writ Petition. Therefore it is more than abundantly clear to me that the petitioner is simply seeking to perpetrate his private grievance as against the third party in the guise of a good citizen. Such attempt in my view is apparently mischievous and I have no intention of encouraging the same. In light of the narration as above this Writ Petition is dismissed with costs of Rs.50, 000/- payable.

Summary

Issues:
1. Mandamus sought to direct the Income Tax Officer to take action against third parties based on representations.
2. Allegations of tax evasion against a third party in a pending suit.
3. Petitioner's delayed action in bringing allegations to the authorities.
4. Dismissal of the Writ Petition due to misuse of legal process.

Analysis:
Issue 1:
The petitioner sought a mandamus directing the Income Tax Officer to take action against third parties based on representations made. However, the court noted the existence of the Income Tax Informants Rewards Scheme, 2018, which allows individuals to report tax evasion anonymously. The court deemed this scheme as an efficacious alternative, making the mandamus unnecessary and not liable to be granted.

Issue 2:
The petitioner referenced certain pending suits involving the petitioner and a third party accused of tax evasion. The petitioner relied on statements made by the third party in earlier proceedings to support the allegations. The court highlighted the absence of the third party in the current petition and questioned the petitioner's motives, suggesting that the petition was an attempt to pursue a private grievance under the guise of a concerned citizen.

Issue 3:
The court raised concerns about the petitioner's delayed action in bringing the allegations to the authorities' attention. Noting that the statements regarding tax evasion were made as early as 2016, the court questioned why the petitioner had not raised the issue with the authorities sooner, casting doubt on the petitioner's intentions and the urgency of the petition.

Issue 4:
Ultimately, the court dismissed the Writ Petition, imposing costs on the petitioner for misuse of the legal process. The court viewed the petitioner's actions as an attempt to pursue a private grievance against the third party under the pretext of being a responsible citizen, deeming it mischievous and unworthy of encouragement. The petitioner was directed to pay costs to the Cancer Institute within a specified timeframe.