CWP No. 17242 of 2008 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP No. 17242 of 2008 Date of decision: 31.03.2009 Vilayati Ram s/o Shri Jai Parshad .....PETITIONER VERSUS State of Haryana through its Chief Secretary, Chandigarh and others ..... RESPONDENTS CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M.KUMAR HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH Present: Ms. Savita Bhandari, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Yogesh Putney, Advocate, for the revenue. *** 1. Whether Reporters of Local Newspapers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the digest? AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH, J. This writ petition has been preferred by a person, who was assured of a reward for providing information about the unaccounted money by the Income-Tax department, in pursuance whereof search was conducted, unaccounted money was recovered but the department has not kept its promise given to the informer, who is the petitioner, as the reward money has not been paid to him till date despite 17 years having passed. He has now approached this Court praying for issuance of a CWP No. 17242 of 2008 2 mandamus directing the department of Income-Tax, to release the assured reward money @ 10% of the tax plus interest collection on the basis of the information provided by the petitioner in the case regarding Sh. Mohar Singh Kulu Ram (Rewari). The petitioner, who was the informer with Code No. 2001 & 2003, had given information to Additional Director of Income-Tax (Investigation) in the year 1990. In pursuance to the said information, a search was conducted in the year 1992-93 on Sh. Mohar Singh Kulu Ram (Rewari) and Rs. 1,50,00,000/- was recovered by the department of Income-Tax, in which Rs. 56,00,000/- was assessed as tax from this firm. As per the Reward Rules, the informer (petitioner) was entitled to 10% of the recovered amount i.e. the tax collection as well as interest collection. The recovery having been successfully made by the Income-Tax department yet the full reward amount, as per his entitlement, has not been released to him despite of the repeated visits and requests to the department and passage of time, except the interim reward given to him immediately after the successful search. It has been contended by the petitioner that on the various requests submitted by the petitioner to the department, the office of the Additional Director of Income-Tax (Investigation), Haryana, Faridabad, ultimately addressed a letter dated 23.09.2005 to the Director General of Income-Tax (Investigation), Panchkula, which was relating to the reward to be paid to the petitioner, whose informer code number is 2001 & 2003. It is the report regarding the search conducted in 1992-93 in case of Sh. Mohar Singh Kulu Ram (Rewari). According to this, till the date of submission of the report, tax collected was Rs. 22,69,309/- and, therefore, 10% of the same came to Rs. 2,26,930/-, which the informer was entitled to subject however to CWP No. 17242 of 2008 3 adjustment of interim reward etc. paid earlier to him. It further states that this reward may be increased later on up to Rs. 73,070/- when further tax and/or interest is collected for Rs. 7,30,700/-. Copy of this letter/report dated 23.09.2005 has been appended as Annexure P-1 to the writ petition. It has been contended that the petitioner was directed to submit an affidavit in this regard, which was submitted and further it was stated in this affidavit dated 14.11.2005 that he had informed the department that he had handed over the complaint to Sh. K.L.Guglani, the then Additional Director of Income-Tax (Investigation), Rohtak. Copy of this affidavit dated 14.11.2005 has been appended as Annexure P-2. He, therefore, contends that his claim having been verified and a report to that effect having been sent by the Additional Director of Income-Tax (Investigation), Haryana, Faridabad, vide his communication dated 23.09.2005 (Annexure P-1), the department of Income-Tax has not released his assured reward money leaving the petitioner with no other remedy except to approach this Court. Upon notice having been issued by this Court, the respondent- department has filed its response to the writ petition, wherein the stand taken by the department primarily is that no evidence has been furnished by the petitioner whatsoever to establish his claim with regard to he being the informer in the search case of Sh. Mohar Singh Kulu Ram (Rewari). It has been stated that the communication/report dated 23.09.2005 (Annexure P-1) is only an internal correspondence, which does not confer any right or give any cause of action to the petitioner to invoke the jurisdiction of this Court. The petitioner has not given full facts with regard to the extent of information given by him, date on which the information was supplied, the extent of help rendered by the petitioner in the shape of evidence, documents etc. It has been contended that although vide CWP No. 17242 of 2008 4 communication dated 23.09.2005, the Additional Director of Income-Tax (Investigation) has sent detail of the demand finalized and recovered but still there are many procedural formalities, which have to be gone through under the Reward Rules before a final reward can be given. It has to be ensured that the information furnished by the informer has direct nexus with the recoveries. That information having not been furnished by the petitioner, he was not entitled to the reward. It has further been contended that the reward cannot be claimed as a matter of right and it can be granted at the discretion of the competent authority. However, it has been admitted that the record relating to the petitioner-informer is not traceable. It has further been stated that most of the search records were destroyed during the Anti Mandal Commission agitation, which took place at Rohtak, where the office of Additional Director of Income-Tax (Investigation) was located earlier. What, therefore, comes out of these pleadings is that due to non-availability of the records, the petitioner is being deprived of his claim for the reward for no fault of his. We have heard the counsel for the parties and have gone through the records of the case. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the position, which emerges, is that the petitioner was the informer with code No. 2001 & 2003. Information was given by the petitioner in the year 1990, pursuant to which, a raid was conducted on Sh. Mohar Singh Kulu ram (Rewari). Rs. 1,50,00,000/- of undisclosed income was recovered by the department. On this recovery, tax was assessed and recovery of the same to the tune of Rs. 22,69,309/- was effected by the department till the report dated 23.09.2005 was submitted by the Additional Director of Income-Tax (Investigation)-respondent No. 2 to the Director General of Income-Tax CWP No. 17242 of 2008 5 (Investigation), Chandigarh at Panchkula. The amount of reward till the said date according to the report was to be calculated @ 10% of the tax collection plus interest collection, which comes to Rs. 2,26,930/-. The above mentioned report dated 23.09.2005 (Annexure P-1) clearly shows that the petitioner was the informer, on the basis of whose information, search was conducted and the department has actually been able to make recovery of tax as assessed till 23.09.2005 of Rs. 22,69,309/-. It is an admitted position on behalf of the respondents that the informer is entitled to 10% of the recovery as per the Recovery Rules. The only ground, which has been taken by the respondent- department for depriving the petitioner of his claim of reward amount, is the non-availability of the records with the department, which cannot be pressed into service for depriving a person of his right, which has accrued to him under the Reward Rules for no fault of his. The applicability of the Reward Rules and the entitlement of the informer to the reward is not in dispute. In these facts and circumstances, the stand of the department that no reliance can be placed on the report dated 23.09.2005 (Annexure P-1) for holding the petitioner entitled to the reward as it is an internal correspondence, is wholly unjustified. Neither this communication has been disputed nor has its contents but still the department states that the petitioner is not entitled to the claim because he is unable to give them the evidence of the information supplied by him. The petitioner has categorically in his affidavit dated 14.11.2005 (Annexure P-2) given the information with regard to the search and has also stated that he had handed over the complaint, which contained the information to Sh. K.L.Gugani, the then Additional Director of Income-Tax, Rohtak. The petitioner is not expected to retain the complaint submitted by him to the CWP No. 17242 of 2008 6 department. Having not denied the factual position with regard to the submission of the information by the petitioner, the department cannot take the shelter of non-availability of the records to deprive the petitioner of his claim, which he is entitled to under the Reward Rules, which fact also is not disputed by the department. The fact that the petitioner provided the information, its effect and result are the factors with which the petitioner is concerned and the documents on record and the pleadings pointedly go in favour of the petitioner. The fact that the petitioner was granted the interim reward goes a long way to show the nature and extent of information given by him. In any case, the nature of information, the petitioner is not concerned with, that was for the department to have ascertained in case the same was to be used as a ground to disentitle the petitioner of his reward. Having failed to do the same, the department cannot blame the petitioner for its inaction or failure to maintain its records. It is settled principle of pleadings that the onus is on the party to prove its assertion unless the statute provides otherwise. Nothing has been brought on record to show that the onus was on the petitioner to prove the nature of the information supplied to the department was on him. We do not find any justification in the stand taken by the respondent-department and in the light of the communication/report dated 23.09.2005 (Annexure P-1), there can be no manner of doubt that the petitioner is entitled to the reward under the Reward Rules. In view of the above, the present writ petition is allowed. A direction is issued to respondents No. 2 and 3 to release the reward amount on the basis of the tax collection plus interest collection in the search case of Sh. Mohar Singh Kulu Ram (Rewari) to the petitioner within a period of six weeks' from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. CWP No. 17242 of 2008 7 However, the department would be at liberty to adjust the interim reward etc. paid to the petitioner in this regard. ( M.M.KUMAR) ( AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH ) JUDGE JUDGE March 31, 2009 pj Whether referred to Reporters......................Yes/No.