There is no statutory liability for the Income-tax Department to deliver a percentage of the monetary value of the assets discovered to the informer.

1. The petitioner, V.K. Agrawal, apparently has not received the full monetary benefits of the price money in facilitating intelligence reports on assessees with the Income-tax Department. It is his claim and contention that whatever had been discovered on the basis of the reports supplied by him and became the subject-matter of raids by the Income-tax Department, he is entitled to a percentage of the amounts so realised by the Department. This is the contention of the petitioner.

2. Plainly the issue before the court is whether a writ may issue on such a petition.

3. There is no issue before the court that the law has not provided whether under the Income-tax Act, 1961, or the rules framed thereunder that there is any statutory liability on behalf of the Department, that a percentage of the monetary value of the assets discovered will be delivered to the informer. The petitioners position is no better than an informer to the Ministry of Finance and is analogous to an informer to police agencies.

4. The petitioner ran the risk of collecting intelligence and his status was no better than that of a snooper prying and picking up information and delivering it to the Income-tax Department for the purposes of receiving a prize.

5. The court has reservations whether such arrangements may be a contract enforceable by a court of law. On this, the court also relies on a decision in the case of Ram Baran Misra V/s. Union of India [1998] 234 ITR 431 (All).

6. Thus, no writ is being issued in this petition. Dismissed.