9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (6) TMI 97X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t tax and estate duty, levied and actually realised. A ceiling of ₹ 5 lacs has been fixed with the proviso that the same would go upto 10% of the extra tax actually realised, which was liable to be waived in suitable cases, after getting approval of the Full Board. The respondents cannot be permitted to take a summersault and now, submit that on the basis of lack of specific information, the petitioner was not entitled for the reward money, as has been laid down in the guidelines, as noticed above. The purpose of the guidelines cannot be frustrated by taking such a narrow view. Rather, apart from the sum of ₹ 5 lacs which the petitioner is entitled to after adjusting the sum of ₹ 80,000/- already received, this Court is ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... kur Sons, Poanta Sahib, District Sirmour, Himachal Pradesh. 2. The case of the petitioner is that he is a resident of District Shimla, Himachal Pradesh and had furnished information with regard to tax default/undisclosed income assets of a firm named M/s Jai Singh Thakur Sons (hereinafter referred to as the 'assessee'). The said assessee had been manufacturing marble chips for the past 25 years and pursuant to the information received, raids were conducted and the petitioner was given interim reward of ₹ 80,000/- on 25.04.2005. In order to recover the balance reward amount, he had filed a Civil Suit dated 28.09.2005 before the Court of Civil Judge (Sr.Divn.), Shimla, which had been decided on 29.09.2009 (Annexure P1) an ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... M/s Thakur Sohan Singh on 03.05.2001. It was admitted that the interim reward of ₹ 80,000/- had been given and that a sum of ₹ 2,35,000/- had been given to the petitioner in the case of M/s Thakur Sohan Singh on 20.05.2004. It was submitted that the Deputy Director of Income Tax (Inv.) Shimla had submitted his report after associating the other officers and not recommended the claim of the petitioner regarding the grant of final award. There was an absolute discretion of the authorities to grant reward and the petitioner had no right to dispute the correctness of the award in any Court of law. 5. Counsel for the petitioner has, accordingly, submitted that the petitioner was legally entitled for the amount due and submitted th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... estate duty levied and actually realised, but subject to a ceiling of ₹ 5,00,000/- (Rupees Five lacs only) if the aforesaid taxes are directly attributable to the information, including documents, supplied by the informant. Provided that the aforesaid monetary limit of ₹ 5,00,000/- subject to however the ceiling limit of 10% of the extra income-tax, wealthtax, gift-tax, estate duty levied and actually realised can be waived in suitable cases after obtaining the approval of the full Board. N.B. In cases where tax is being paid by the assessee in installments after the assessments becoming final, the authority competent to grant reward may consider disbursement of reward in installment. Explanation: The monetary ceili ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... income of ₹ 1,40,00,000/- before the Income Tax Settlement Commissioner (for short, the 'ITSC') and paid tax of ₹ 83,80,000/-. However, finally the ITSC, in the cases of the group, assessed the income at ₹ 2,25,00,000/- on the basis of the under-filing of the sales and undisclosed properties. Thus, the said order had been given effect to by the Assessing Officer and the taxes due had also been collected on the said income. This would be clear from the perusal of the communication dated 31.01.2014 (Annexure R2). The relevant part reads as under: 2.2. M/s Jai Singh Thakur Sons, a partnership firm and its partners Sh. S.S.Thakur, Smt. Indu Thakur and SH. Mayank Thakur filed their applications before ITSC on 24. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ence taken by the respondents, at that point of time, was that the income tax assets of the assessee had not yet attained finality and proceedings on this behalf had been pending before the ITSC and the suit was premature. It is, in such circumstances, the pleathat Section 80 notice had not been served was also accepted and it was also admitted that a sum of ₹ 80,000/- had been paid way back on 25.04.2005. A period of more than a decade has passed since the petitioner was granted the initial amount and a perusal of the case would go on to show that the petitioner has been running from pillar to post, for the benefit which had been wrongly denied to him, without any justification. 11. In such circumstances, the respondents cannot be ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
