2001 PLP 831 (PTD)
MKS. MOHD. ABOOBACKER SAHEB Versus COMMISSIONER OF WEALTH TAX
| Citation | 2001 PLP 831 (PTD) |
| Forum / Court | 242 I T R 319 |
| Bench Members | R. Jayasimha Babu and N. V. Balasubramanian, JJ |
| Parties | MKS. MOHD. ABOOBACKER SAHEB Versus COMMISSIONER OF WEALTH TAX |
| Primary Law | Wealth tax |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2001 PLP 831 (PTD)?
This judgment primarily cites: Wealth tax as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2001 PLP 831 (PTD)?
The case was heard and decided by the 242 I T R 319 bench comprising: R. Jayasimha Babu and N. V. Balasubramanian, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2001 PLP 831 (PTD) (MKS. MOHD. ABOOBACKER SAHEB Versus COMMISSIONER OF WEALTH TAX). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Headnotes / Summary
‑‑‑‑Exemption‑‑‑‑Award‑‑‑Difference between award and reward‑‑‑Reward received by a tax informer is not an award‑‑‑Not entitled to exemption‑‑ Indian Wealth Tax Act, 1957, S.5(1)(xviii). There, is a difference between reward and award. An award is normally given in recognition of a significant achievement normally over and above the call of duty and .is not a payment for service rendered. A reward obtained for information which is supplied cannot be regarded as an award. It is not entitled to exemption under section 5(1)(xviii) of the Wealth Tax Act, 1957. P.P.S. Janarthana Raja for the Assessee: C.V. Rajan for the Commissioner.
Judgment & Decree
R. JAYASIMHA BABU, J.‑‑‑As to whether the amount received by an informer as reward from the Government for having given information about concealment by a manufacturer of goods regarding the proper amount on which excise duty was payable, should be treated as an "award" for gallantry or merit, is the question that arises for consideration in this petition. The petitioner received a sum of Rs.24,40,000 for having given such information. The petitioner contends that the amount is an "award" for meritorious service rendered by him 'and, therefore, is exempt from wealth tax under section 5(1)(xviii) of the Wealth Tax Act, 1957. There is a difference between reward and award. The reward was received by the petitioner for the information which he provided. An award, on the other hand, is normally given in recognition of a significant achievement normally over and above the call of duty and is not a payment for service rendered. The reward obtained by the petitioner was really a payment made by the Government for the information which it supplied, as the Government apparently considered such information, presumably it would be able to proceed against the manufacturer who had withheld the amount of duty properly payable on the goods manufactured by him. Such a reward cannot be regarded as a meritorious award. If as citizen, without expectation of any amount, the assessee had provided information and had the Government of its own without being legally bound to do so, given him an award for the civic consciousness displayed, the matter would have been different. The petitioner came up with the information solely with the expectation of receiving the reward and it is reasonable to assume that the petitioner would not have provided the information if such a reward had not been promised to such informers. The Tribunal has rightly held that the Wealth Tax Act, does not exempt such rewards. The meritorious and gallantry awards referred to in section 5(1)(xviii) of the Act do not include a reward like the one obtained by the petitioner. We do not see any merit in this petition and the same is dismissed. M.B.A./420/FC Petition dismissed.