Section 153C jurisdiction fails where the assessee was himself the searched person and the seized material came from his premises.

Section 153C of the Income-tax Act could not be invoked where the search under section 132 was carried out at the assessee's residential premises, statements were recorded from him, and documents and cash were seized from that premises. On those facts, he was not a person other than the searched person, so the statutory basis for section 153C was absent. The Karnataka HC held that the notices and consequential proceedings were without jurisdiction and quashed them in favour of the assessee.

---

---

Issues: Whether notices issued under section 153C of the Income-tax Act, 1961 were sustainable when the petitioner's residential premises had been searched and he was treated as a searched person rather than as a person other than the searched person.

Analysis: The satisfaction note and search material showed that the search under section 132 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 was carried out at the petitioner's residential premises, statements were recorded from him, and documents and cash were seized from that premises. On those facts, the petitioner could not be treated as a "such other person" or non-searched person for invoking section 153C. The Court applied the settled distinction between a searched person and another person, and held that section 153C is attracted only in relation to a person other than the searched person. Since the very foundation for invoking section 153C was absent, the notices and consequential proceedings lacked jurisdiction.

Conclusion: The impugned notices under section 153C and all consequent proceedings were unsustainable and were quashed in favour of the assessee.

Ratio Decidendi: Section 153C can be invoked only against a person other than the searched person, and where the premises searched belong to the assessee himself and the search material is seized from him, initiation under section 153C is without jurisdiction.

---