Rakesh Garg, J. - (1.) THE petitioner is a practicing advocate at Dhuri and as per the averments made in the writ petition is having regular source of income from profession and rental income. He has filed his return of income at Malerkotla and in support of this contention, he has placed on record Annex. P -2, i.e., status of assessment of the petitioner for the assessment year 2001 -02 upto assessment year 2007 -08. It is further the case of the petitioner that a search was made on 12 -10 -2006 at the premises of one of his clients, namely, Ved Parkash and his brother's son of Diwan Chand resident of house No. 2555, First Floor, Phase 1, Dugri, Ludhiana for whom he is rendering the profession services. After the search, the office of the petitioner was also visited and statement of the petitioner was recorded. The petitioner received a notice dated 18 -10 -2007 under Section 153A of the Income Tax Act (for short the "Act") requiring him 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 office of the Assistant Commissioner, Circle -I, Ludhiana, on or before 16 -11 -2007. The petitioner filed reply to this notice vide Annex. P -3, dated 4 -2 -2008. Challenging the jurisdiction of respondent No. 2 and intiation of proceedings under Section 153A of the Income Tax Act against the petitioner on the ground that no search was initiated against him under Section 132 of Act and he has not received any notice for change of jurisdiction from Malerkotla to Ludhiana as envisaged under Section 127 of the Act.
(2.) THROUGH his reply, the petitioner also requested respondent No. 2 to decide the issue of jurisdiction by passing a speaking order. By way of this writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the issuance of notice to him under Section 153A of the Income Tax Act by respondent No. 2 on the ground that the petitioner is rendering professional services to his clients and therefore, in view of the various provisions of the Advocates Act, 1961, the action of the respondents is in violation of the fundamental rights of the petitioner as enshrined under Section 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India. The petitioner has also challenged the action of the respondents for initiation of proceedings under Section 153A of the Act on the ground that it can be initiated only after taking action under Section 132 of the Act for the search and there is no such action against the petitioner. The petitioner has also challenged the jurisdiction of the respondent No. 2 to issue notice to him under Section 153A of the Act on the ground that jurisdiction to assess the petitioner is at Malerkotla and the provisions of Section 127 of the Act for change of jurisdiction have not been complied with in the present case.
(3.) WE have heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner and find no force in the contention raised by Shri Pankaj Jain, advocate, learned Counsel for the petitioner.;