The responsibility to determine reward amounts rests on accurate information and resultant extra taxes, rather than merely on seizure amounts.

1 This writ petition is filed seeking to quash the decision contained in Ext. P2 and for a direction to the respondents to grant the petitioner 20% of the amount seized by the respondents on 20-4-1989 from the firm M/s. Kushiram Ramchand.

2 The allegation of the petitioner is that on information given by him, certain undisclosed income was deleted amounts confiscated and accordingly, he is entitled to 20% of the amounts detected and confiscated as a reward.

3 The petitioner filed O. P.14774/1993, before this Court, which was disposed of as per Ext. P1 directing that untrammelled by any of the contentions raised in the counter affidavit in that case, the petitioner's case shall be reconsidered by the Chairman of the Central Board of direct taxes. The Chairman was to issue orders with notice to the petitioner.

4 It is thereafter that Ext. P2 has been issued by stating that the Competent Committee consisting of the members stated in Ext. P2 have, after giving opportunity to the petitioner of being heard, decided that the reward of Rs. 1,50,000/- already paid to the petitioner is proper on the facts and circumstances of the case. If is stated on Ext. P2 that the Committee after carefully considering the representation of the petitioner at the time of hearing has come to the conclusion that the reward granted by the earlier Competent committee was after carefully considering the nature and extent of information and extra taxes realised which were directly attributable to the information supplied by the petitioner as the informant. The claim of the petitioner that he is entitled to 20% of the seized amount as reward, was adverted to and considered by the Committee and it was held that the said claim is misconceived as the Reward Rules of Income Tax Department do not make any reference to the total amount of seizure but only to the extra taxes realised on account of the search.

5 Counter affidavit and additional counter affidavit are on record.

6 Along with I. A. No. 16527/2005 the R.3(C). Ext. R3(B) discloses the guidelines and Ext. R3(C) is the minutes of the meetings which led to Ext. P2

7 The factors which have to be considered for determining the reward are enumerated in Ext. R3(B). The authority competent to grant the reward is required to keep in mind the following circumstances:
(a) The accuracy of the information given by the informant;
(b) The extent and nature of the help rendered by the informant;
(c) The risk and trouble undertaken and the expense and odium incurred by the informant in securing and furnishing the information and documents;
(d) The quantum of work involved in utilising the information furnished and in making the assessment;
(e) The quantum of extra taxes levied and actually realised or realisable which are directly attributable to the information and documents supplied by the informant. It is clarified that the quantum of extra taxes realisable will be determined only after all the assessments have become final and no appeal etc. is pending or filed and the time for filing of appeal has expired:
(f) In cases where the information led to recovery of otherwise irrecoverable taxes the facility with which such taxes could be recovered as a result of the information,

8 Thus it can be seen that the quantum of extra taxes levied and actually realised or realisable, which are directly attributable to the information and documents supplied by the informant is the relevant yardstick and such quantum of extra taxes realisable will be determined only after all the assessments have become final. The relevant considerations would show that merely because one person gives an information that need not necessarily enable him to any benefit as claimed by the petitioner in this case. The risk and trouble undertaken, the expense and odium incurred by the informant in securing and furnishing information, the relevance of the information given and various other factors require to be considered

9 Ext. R3(c) minutes of the meeting of the comm