-f' C..'?—JL6-0 IK! SHE HISH CQVSS Q? kreBXGATURS CHHA'BTISG&BH A$ W.E* BO. ^•5'Z); /2001 :^:ll".-®:,i'KIS^;S:?B -^•.^''y-'-f^^' laBSI'EIONSR 4..-—° '7-;"**" . /•:""'"^ ...;•••* ^.^^•^^••"^" ^••""chrt'1-"^^'...- is Mallicliaaiil Bald. ( Jaia } . • : S/&'Ea^a*%r®Kaa*::S.a;iaags<ahfiv^^'Wfss' K/0 Shaafej. Vi.jay MarKet,' Saniar Bazsr:l! aaj.pur.; • ' • . -^! ^•^w^'^0'-" l^£a*<'3s'^S'fc"~' 6s; RESPOSDE 'S Versus i)')!:j. 1 y: 1» Ihe GeiBmissiaaer e£ I&c®ma.®ax (laveafeigafcjLf , :3'ab:all((ur/&a3.ggc .^ _. '^ ; ' ,>L_2 igesfiS'T'ax--6EfIee,"iTabaliiUis;;(MP5 2. 'Efae assfe* ettimtd.ssi.iBBeiT •£.iBeaine Tax., Xayes-feigatsiea Ca.ccle, Raiyur 3. yn.i.en sf I^adia'bbrauQb its . [ Secreta.ry,,, Piaaaes: Beiiartiaea'ts,^:; Hew' Selhi* ' . :^ ^' WRXT, EET@;K3B;: UNOER :AWaS£,B;:2^/;2.%'7,,,^_^@_j IKB3A ; • : 1:: ' ; : : ' • :i 3 1 »::•; a^hok PETmONER HIGHCOURTOF CI-IHATFISGARH : BILASPUR WRIT PETITION N0.99Q OF 2001 Mallichand Baid (Jain) Veraus , < RESPQNDENTS The Commissioner of tncome Tax (Investigation) & Others' (Writ Retition underArtide226/227 ofthe Ctonstitutlon of India) SingteBench : Hon'bleShri Satish K. ^nihotri, J. -Present:- ShriAshishSurana.AdvocatefoFthepetUioner. Shri Malay Shrivastava, Advocate for the Income Tax Department, ORDER (Passed on this 15" day of November, 2011) T 1. By this petition, the petitipner seeks a direcUon to the respondents to suitably compensate to the petHioner to the tune of l^.1,53,20,000/- (Rupees One Crore RiftyThree LacsTwentyThousandOnly). ,. » 2. The case of the petitioner isthat a raidwas conducted by-the tneome- " Tax Departmentbetweenthe'pwiod 17.10.1M5 to26.IQ.1995.0nthe basis of the said raid, following due process of law, it was held that the fpetitiqner was tiable to pay incwne tax on the totel income of Rs.1,85,753. Thereagainst,an appeal was preferred. The Income Tax Appellate Tribunat after having examined all the Tacts ofthe case came tothe conclusion thattherewas no undisclosed income oftheassessee for the block peripd cqmputed by the Asse^ing Offieer in the impugned order, by brder dated 31.01.200T.NoqrdeTwas squght ormadebythe Tribunal in r^pect ofthe alleged materiats seized by the income tax officer and further compensation as claimed by the petitioner in this petition. ' 3. Thfe Court, on the basis of affidavrts and other documents, cannot determine the compensation and damages to the petitionw,as claimed byhim.lftheRetitiqnerfeeisthatsomedamage-wascausedtohimand, as such, he is entitled to compensation, the writ junsdiction in exerdse df rts power under Artfcle 226 of the Constltution is not theappropriate Torum. However, on the request of learned counsel for the pelitioner, liberty is'reseryed to the petittoner tq takeTecoui'se to appropriato fomm, as maybe ayailableunderthe provisjonsoflaw. 4. Accorclingly, the writ petitipn is dismlssed. No order asto costs. Sd/- SatishK.Agnihotri Judge •-N