JIGNESH FARSHUBHAI KAKKAD Vs. DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX

JUDGEMENT

(1.) LOOKING to the fact that both the petitioners are partners in M/s J.P. Finance, and as facts of both the petitions are similar, at the request of the learned advocates, both the petitions are heard together.

(2.) LOOKING to the facts of the case, rule is issued in both the petitions. Shri M.R. Bhatt, learned senior standing counsel for the Central Government, appears for the respondents in both the petitions and waives service of rule. At the request of the learned advocates, both the petitions are finally heard today.

(3.) IT has been submitted by the learned advocate for the petitioners that the Addl. Director of IT is not competent to issue such an authorization because such an authorization can be issued only by the Director of IT under the provisions of the Act. In reply to the said submission made by learned advocate Shri Shah, the learned Advocate General has submitted that in a given case, the Addl. Director of IT can also issue authorization and he has relied upon a judgment to that effect. We do not propose to go into the above-referred issue especially when we are of the view that the satisfaction recorded by the Addl. Director of IT is not just and proper for the reasons stated hereinbelow.