9911796707
TMI Blog1999 (12) TMI 49X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... raid was conducted by defendant No. 2. As a result of that raid materials worth Rs. 3 crores were seized. According to the plaintiff, he is entitled to receive 10 percent of the amount of income-tax charged by the Department pursuant to the information supplied by the plaintiff. According to the plaintiff, he is entitled to an amount of Rs. 15 lakhs as reward. The plaintiff submitted that he has been paid only an amount of Rs. 75,000 and, therefore, he is entitled to a decree in a sum of Rs. 14,25,000. The suit is resisted by defendants Nos. 1, 2 and 3. According to the defendants, this suit is not maintainable because, grant of reward under the guidelines framed for that purpose by the Department is in the discretion of the authorities ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... opinion, therefore, it would be appropriate to take up issue No. 4 for consideration first. The defendants have produced on record the guidelines, which were framed by the Income-tax Department governing grant of rewards to informants in 1987. The plaintiff had given the information in the year 1988. Guideline No. 1.2 of the guidelines lays down that the rewards to informants, who have given the information after December 1, 1987, would be governed by these guidelines. These guidelines are in the nature of executive instructions issued by the Income-tax Department. Guideline No. 6 of these guidelines has been relied on by the defendants, which reads as follows: "6. Nature of reward and prohibition for entertainment of representations. R ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s whether the plaintiff proves that he is entitled under the Income-tax Act to receive 10 percent of the amount collected on account of the information furnished by him. It is obvious that the guidelines have not been framed under the Income-tax Act in the sense that they are statutory in nature. Therefore, there is no provision in the Income-tax Act or the Rules framed thereunder, which entitles the plaintiff to 10 percent of the amount. Therefore, issue No. 1 is answered accordingly. So far as issue No. 2 is concerned, as I have held while considering issue No. 4 that grant of reward is in the absolute discretion of the Department, it cannot be said that the plaintiff is entitled to receive any amount from the Department. Issue No. 2 is, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
