M.V. Venkateswara Rao vs Secretary, CBDT

Nayak, J.—The petitioner claiming that the information supplied by him directly led to the recovery of Rs. 10 lakhs and more towards in Income Tax from Sri Rama Corpn. and alleging that only a sum of Rs. 56,787 is paid towards the reward whereas under the relevant guidelines issued by the Central Board of Direct Taxes vide its letter F. No. 12/22/68 - I.T. Inv., dated 23-6-1973 he should have been paid 10 per cent of the tax recovered, has filed this writ petition for the following relief :

"For the reasons stated in the accompanying affidavit, the petitioner herein prays that this Hon''ble court maybe pleased to issue a writ or order or orders or a direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of mandamus declaring that the petitioner is entitled the taxes including interest and penalties received as reward amount, and, consequently, direct the respondents to effect the payment of the reward amount, accordingly, and pass such other orders as the Hon''ble court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case."

In response to rule nisi, the third respondent has filed counter affidavit opposing the prayer. In the counter-affidavit it is stated :

"In reply to the averments in paras 3 and 4 of the affidavit, even according to the petitioner, the petitioner was paid a total sum of Rs. 56,787 towards payment of the reward amount and the balance amount is Rs. 1,170. It is respectfully submitted that as per the confidential report dated 30-9-1987 of the assessing officer, all the first appeals pending in the group of cases pertaining to Sri Rama Corporation were disposed of by the Commissioner (Appeals) on 14-8-1987 and all the appellate orders were given effect to. The tax effect attributable to the additions on account of information given by the petitioner was worked out as also the amount collected and balance to be collected as on that date was detailed in the said letter. As per the same, the tax effect attributable on account of the petitioner''s information is Rs. 5,81,577. The tax collected from the assessee was Rs. 5,69,865 and the balance tax to be collected was Rs. 11,712. It is clear from the said information that the petitioner was entitled to 10 per cent of the tax amount of Rs. 5,81,577, i.e., an amount of about Rs. 58,157 out of which he was paid an amount of Rs. 56,787 leaving a balance of Rs. 1,268 payable to the petitioner. The balance tax amount that could not be collected was in respect of one of the partners late Sri L.S. Rama Rao who evidently died by that date, in respect of the assessment year 1978-79. It is, therefore, absolutely incorrect, the petitioner''s bare averment that the department realised the tax to the tune of more than 15 lakhs on account of the information provided by him, and the petitioner is put to strict proof of the same. The said averment is baseless and untenable."

The factual averments made in para 3 of the counter-affidavit are not denied by the petitioner by filing reply affidavit. Be that as it may, there is a factual controversy between the petitioner and the respondents authorities. Under article 226 of the Constitution, this court cannot take up investigation of disputed facts and record a finding on a pure question of fact. On that short ground, we dismiss this writ petition reserving liberty to the petitioner to work out his remedies before the competent Civil Court, if he is so advised.