JOGINDER SINGH Vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India has been filed by Joginder Singh, petitioner, against the Commissioner of Income-tax, Patiala, and the ITO, Jullundur, for quashing the warrant issued by the Commissioner, Patiala, under Section 132 of the I. T. Act and also the assessment proceedings made by the ITO, respondent No. 2, against him.

(2.) THE facts of the case are that on 21st of January, 1965, Joginder Singh, the petitioner, was apprehended by the customs staff at Bombay and Rs. 1,82,500 and 82 sterling notes were recovered from his possession. After investigation, the customs authorities did not deal with the money as no offence, which could be tried by the customs authorities, was seemingly made out against the petitioner. The revenue, through the Commissioner, respondent No. 1, on receipt of information, issued a search and seizure warrant under Section 132 (1) of the Income-tax Act (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") to seize the money. It issued notice to the petitioner to explain the source of the money. After the money was seized, the case was assigned by respondent No. 1 to respondent No. 2, as the petitioner, from the material available with respondent No. 1 up till that time, was shown to be a resident of Jullundur. Respondent No. 2 sent notices to the petitioner, out of which one was served on him by way of affixation on 14th of February, 1967, and the other on 16th of February, 1967, through the postal authorities. The petitioner then through his counsel entered appearance before respondent No. 2 on the 7th of April, 1967, and made some applications. The petitioner filed an application under Section 124 (4) of the Act, questioning the jurisdiction of respondent No. 2, on 14th of April, 1967, and addressed it to respondent No. 1. This is annex. V to the petition. Note No. 2 at the foot of annex. V shows that its copy had been endorsed to the Commissioner of Income-tax, Delhi. On 19th of April, 1967, the petitioner sent a similar application, annex. U to the petition, to respondent No. 2 intimating him about his application to respondent No. 1 dated 14th of April, 1967, with a request not to proceed with the case. However, respondent No. 2, in spite of this application questioning the jurisdiction, proceeded with the case to finalise the assessment, vide orders annex. ' W'.

(3.) THE petitioner through this petition has contested the search and seizure warrants issued under Section 132 of the Act and also the refusal of respondents Nos. 1 and 2 to comply with the provisions of Section 124 (4) of the Act in not deciding his request in questioning the jurisdiction and deciding the case.