AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
S. Rajendra Babu, J.—In this petition, the petitioner has questioned the warrant issued u/s 132 of the Income Tax Act on the ground that the same could not have been issued by the Chief Commissioner of Income Tax who has no jurisdiction over the petitioner. This position is factually conceded by learned senior standing counsel for the Department. Hence, the proceedings conducted pursuant to that warrant stand quashed.
During the pendency of this petition, an application (I.A. 1. ) has been filed claiming damages. It appears that the petitioner has also filed a suit in O.S. No. 40 of 1975, on the file of City Civil Judge, Court Hall No. 17, Bangalore, for similar relief. Inasmuch as the petitioner can pursue the remedy claimed in I.A. 1. in that suit, it is unnecessary to entertain this I.A. 1. It is dismissed.
The petitioner has made several allegations of mala fides against respondent No. 2. Inasmuch as I have quashed the impugned proceedings on another ground, it is unnecessary for me to consider the same, particularly, when the petitioner has filed a suit for damages and he can very well urge the allegations in relation to mala fides in that suit.
However, the petition is allowed and the rule made absolute on the basis of the concession made by learned senior standing counsel for the Department.