Prahladdas Mundra vs Chief Income Tax Commissioner

Viney Mittal, J.—Issue notice to show cause to the respondents as to why the present petition be not admitted and finally disposed of. On asking of the Court, Shri R.L. Jain, Senior Advocate appearing along with Ms. Veena Mandlik, Standing counsel for the respondents, who is present in the Court, accepts notice on behalf of the respondents.

Advance copy of the petition had already been supplied to the learned Senior counsel for the respondents in the Court.

Heard the learned counsel for the parties for final disposal.

The petitioner Prahladdas Mundra has approached this Court challenging a communication dated 31-8-2006, Annexure P-33, whereby a claim made by the petitioner for payment of reward money on account of the alleged supply of the secret information to the income tax Department has been rejected.

The petitioner has claimed that he had supplied secret information to the department between the period 1992 and 1997 and on that basis, the department had carried out raids (search and seizure operation) on various assessees and had been able to detect evasion of tax by the said assessees. On account of the aforesaid allegations, the petitioner claims that he is entitled to the reward money.

The claim of the petitioner has been rejected by the department. It has been maintained that the petitioner at no point of time had supplied any such information, as per the guidelines issued by the department, which had helped the department in conducting any search on the basis of the said information. The department has also specifically maintained that no search and seizure operation had been carried out by the department at the instance of the petitioner and as such, he is not entitled for any reward money.

The stand taken by the department is disputed by the petitioner in the present petition.

After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, I am satisfied that the petitioner is raising such questions of fact, which can only be adjudicated on the basis of the evidence led by the parties. This Court, while exercising the writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, is not expected to go into the disputed questions of fact. Consequently, the present petition is dismissed and the petitioner is relegated to seek his appropriate remedy, if so advised, before the appropriate civil Court in accordance with law.