TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2007 (8) TMI 282
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 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, 1981, letter addressed by the plaintiff to defendant No. 3 clarifying that the plaintiff would be entitled to reward of 10 per cent. of the amount in tax plus penal interest realised by the Government. 10. On July 30, 1981, eleventh petition filed by the plaintiff providing information relating to members of erstwhile HUF of R. B. Narayanlal Bansilal Pittie. 11. There was no reply or response from the respondents, therefor....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....dants 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 final in respect of Harinagar Sugar Mills as stated in paragraph 5 of the written statement ? 8. Whether the defendants prove that the assessee Harinagar Sugar Mills Ltd. had claimed export losses and the same were allowed by the Income-tax Officer as stated in paragraph 5 of the written statement ? 9. Whether the defendants prove that the Income-tax Officer had considered the claims of the plaintiff in respect of the assess....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....lies 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 plaintiff had no locus to file such suit as it did not have any enforceable right based upon the executive instructions. 24. The Supreme Court in Union of India v. R. Padmanabhan [2003] 1 RC 664 ; [2003] 156 ELT 625 while considering the subject of rewards to informants a Government servant, based on the guidelines/circular issued by the Customs Department, after reviewing the existing policy and procedure under the provisions of the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....el 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 plaintiff, there was no additional revenue generated and that the information supplied by the plaintiff was already within their knowledge. 28. The another facet is that the first petition/information supplied in writing by the plaintiff is of dated March 23, 1973, for the assessment year 1964-65 of the Pittie family. The announcement or publication as released by the defendants was of November, 1964. At that time the plaintiff was income-tax ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....o 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 of promissory estoppel in reference to the representation made, in my view, in the facts and circumstances of the present case, is not acceptable. The facts are distinct and distinguishable. The reward as claimed, cannot be granted. 34. As observed by the apex court, such rewards are always based upon the guidelines and rules and will always be granted at the discretion of the competent authority. There is no question of any legal right to claim such re....