Pawan Kumar Garg, Advocate v. Chief Commissioner Of Income Tax And Others

CWP No.4830 of 2008 In the High Court for the States of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh … CWP No.4830 of 2008 Date of decision:26.3.2008 Pawan Kumar Garg, Advocate .. Petitioner Versus Chief Commissioner of Income Tax and others ... Respondent Coram: Hon’ble Mr.Justice Satish Kumar MittalHon'ble Mr.Justice Rakesh Kumar Garg Present:Mr.Pankaj Jain, Advocatefor the Petitiioner. Rakesh Kumar Garg,J. The petitioner is a practicing Advocate at Dhuri and asper the averments made in the writ petition is having regular sourceof income from profession and rental income. He has filed his returnof income at Malerkotla and in support of this contention, he hasplaced on record Annexure P-2,i.e., status of assessment of thepetitioner for the Assessment Year 2001-02 up to Assessment Year2007-08. It is further the case of the petitioner that a search wasmade on 12.10.2006 at the premises of one of his clients, namely,Ved Parkash and his brother's son of Diwan Chand resident ofHouse No.2555, First Floor, Phase I, Dugri, Ludhiana for whom he isrendering the profession services. After the search, the office of the CWP No.4830 of 2008 petitioner was also visited and statement of the petitioner wasrecorded. The petitioner received a notice dated 18.10.2007 underSection 153-A of the Income Tax Act(for short the “Act”) requiringhim to file the return of income for Assessment Years 2001-02, 2002-03, 2003-04, 2004-05, 2005-06 and 2006-07. Through, this notice,the petitioner was also required to submit these returns in the officeof the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-I, Ludhiana onor before 16.11.2007. The petitioner filed reply to this notice videAnnexure P-3 dated 4.2.2008 challenging the jurisdiction ofrespondent No.2 and initiation of proceedings under Section 153(A)of the Income Tax Act against the petitioner on the ground that nosearch was initiated against him under section 132 of the Act and hehas not received any notice for change of jurisdiction from Malerkotlato Ludhiana as envisaged under Section 127 of the Act. Through his reply, the petitioner also requestedrespondent No.2 to decide the issue of jurisdiction by passing aspeaking order. By way of this writ petition, the petitioner has challengedthe issuance of notice to him under Section 153(A) of the Income TaxAct by respondent No.2 on the ground that the petitioner is renderingprofessional services to his clients and therefore, in view of thevarious provisions of the Advocates Act, 1961, the action of therespondents is in violation of the fundamental rights of the petitioneras enshrined under Section 19(1)(G) of the Constitution of India. Thepetitioner has also challenged the action of the respondents for initiation of proceedings under Section 153(A) of the Act on theground that it can be initiated only after taking action under Section132 of the Act for the search and there is no such action against thepetitioner. The petitioner has also challenged the jurisdiction of therespondent No.2 to issue notice to him under Section 153(A) of theAct on the ground that jurisdiction to assess the petitioner is atMalerkotla and the provisions of Section 127 of the Act for change ofjurisdiction have not been complied with in the present case. We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner andfind no force in the contention raised by Shri Pankaj Jain, Advocate,learned counsel for the petitioner. initiation of proceedings under Section 153(A) of the Act on theground that it can be initiated only after taking action under Section132 of the Act for the search and there is no such action against thepetitioner. The petitioner has also challenged the jurisdiction of therespondent No.2 to issue notice to him under Section 153(A) of theAct on the ground that jurisdiction to assess the petitioner is atMalerkotla and the provisions of Section 127 of the Act for change ofjurisdiction have not been complied with in the present case. We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner andfind no force in the contention raised by Shri Pankaj Jain, Advocate,learned counsel for the petitioner. The petitioner has placed a panchanama Annexure P-5on the record and a perusal of the same would show that a searchwas conducted in the premises of the petitioner on the basis ofwarrant of authorization dated 11.10.2006 issued under section 132of the Act, in his case and his statement was also recorded. FromAnnexure P-4, i.e., communication dated 10.3.2008 issued byrespondent No.2 to the petitioner clearly shows that jurisdiction overthe case of the petitioner has been assigned to him vide an orderpassed under section 127 of the Act by the Commissioner of IncomeTax, Ludhiana-II. Through this communication, it has also been madeclear to the petitioner that the objection regarding issuance of noticeunder Section 153(A) of the Act, his attention has been drawn to thePanchnama dated 12.10.2006(Annexure P-5). Keeping in view the above facts, we are not inclined to CWP No.4830 of 2008 invoke our jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India atthis preliminary stage. The petitioner has only been given a noticeunder Section 153(A) of the Act, to which he has filed his reply andno order has so far been passed against him. Thus, the writ petitionis dismissed being pre-mature. (RAKESH KUMAR GARG) JUDGE March 26, 2008(SATISH KUMAR MITTAL)nk JUDGE