9911796707
TMI Blog2007 (8) TMI 282X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... fect that "the persons who discloses their concealed income voluntarily would be treated leniently and further ; that the rate of reward to those furnishing information about concealed income has been stepped up from 2.5 per cent. to a minimum of 7.5 per cent. of the extra tax which would be generated as a result of such information and in suitable cases the reward might go up to 10 per cent.". 3. On March 23, 1973, first petition filed by the plaintiff providing information related to Pittie family. 4. On February 27, 1974, second petition filed by the plaintiff providing information relating to Harinagar Sugar Mills Ltd. 5. On March 11, 1973, third petition filed by the plaintiff providing information relating to Pittie family. 6. On June 29, 1974, fourth petition filed by the plaintiff providing information relating to M/s. Harinagar Sugar Mills Ltd. 7. On July 25, 1977, fifth petition filed by the plaintiff providing information relating to Mr. Raojibhai C. Patel. 8. On July 28, 1979, sixth to tenth (five) petitions filed by the plaintiff providing information relating to members of erstwhile HUF of R. B. Narayanlal Bansilal Pittie. 9. On June 1, 19 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... embers of Pittie family as stated in paragraph 2 of the written statement ? 3. Whether the defendants prove that from the dividend income of shares of Hindustan Sugar Mills Ltd., and upon deduction of interest payable to the Bank of India and other expenses in getting the sale of shares set aside thereby resulting in there being no surplus of dividend income as stated in paragraph 3 of the written statement ? 4. Whether the defendants prove that the information given by the plaintiff in respect of Pittie family was already on their file and that the same was disclosed in their income-tax returns of the assessees as stated in paragraph 3 of the written statement ? 5. If answer to issues Nos. 2 to 4 are in the affirmative, whether defendants prove that no amount is payable to plaintiff as reward under the guidelines of defendant as stated in paragraph 4 of the written statement ? 6. Whether the defendants prove that the petition dated July 28, 1979, of the plaintiff has not resulted in any gain to Revenue as stated in paragraph 4 of the written statement ? 7. Whether the defendants prove that the assessment under FPT for the assessment years 1943-44, 1944-45 has not become ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... entitled to get a reward from defendant No. 1 based upon the representation made and published in the various newspapers dated November 8, 1964. 23. Learned counsel appearing for the plaintiff has strongly relied on Narayan Chandra Chakraborty v. Union of India [1980] 126 ITR 831 (Cal), to support his case about the offer of reward as announced and published in the newspapers. A person who in response to such offer if supplies information the doctrine of promissory estoppel is applicable against the Government. Such suit against the Government is maintainable, based on the Indian Contract Act, 1872 (section 70) read with sections 106 and 114(g) of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 and further that adverse inference be drawn against the department of the Government as they failed to furnish any information regarding the recovery of extra taxes, based on such information. In contrast to this, learned counsel appearing for defendant No. 1 has relied strongly on Motilal Kishangopal Thanvi v. Union of India [2000] 242 ITR 656 (Bom) whereby this court on a basis of guidelines framed by the Income-tax Department governing grant of rewards to the informant in 1987, held that the pl ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... is no evidence laid by the plaintiff to prove that the Department has generated so much amount because of the information supplied by him. The plaintiff must prove his own case. The defendants' witness or their inability to place on record the relevant documents at the time of evidence would not be sufficient to grant the amount as prayed by the plaintiff. There is no question about adverse remarks of the Department as contended by learned counsel appearing for the plaintiff, as the plaintiff himself is unable to justify his case of generation of the amount as averred. The plaintiff, therefore, failed to discharge his basic burden of proving his case specifically when there are positive averments made by the defendants' Department saying that there was no income generated because of the alleged supply of information. 27. The plaintiff has been unable to prove the actual generation of aforesaid income except the averments made is not sufficient to shift the burden of proving the actual income upon the defendants. It is inconceivable under the facts and circumstances of the case that the defendants ought to have proved that on the basis of the alleged information supplied by the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... actual guidelines has been produced either by the parties. The newspaper publication as contended cannot be the foundation of representation in such reward, as prayed. Assumed for a moment that there was such representation made but those representation even of respondent No. 1 could not have been made beyond the guidelines published or announced at the relevant time. The plaintiff being the income-tax practitioner for whatever may be the reason unable to produce any guidelines based upon which he was claiming the reward of Rs. 5,00,000. 33. The Department has not denied the representation and/or the entitlement of reward if case is made out, but submitted vehemently that the Department nowhere had generated any income out of those information. There was no letter or communication sent at any point of time by the Department to the plaintiff about such reward. The suit is of the year 1985. The first application itself was made in the year 1973. Therefore, in the absence of any communication, the presumption is always in favour of the Department that they have not generated any income. The contention based on the judgment (supra) that the Department is bound by the principle ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
