Section 153A jurisdiction fails without search authorisation; Revenue must follow Section 153C for material relating to another person.

Where no search authorisation existed in the assessee's name and its name appeared only in a panchnama drawn at another entity's premises, initiation of proceedings under Section 153A was invalid. The statutory scheme required the Revenue, if it sought to act on material relating to a person other than the searched person, to follow Section 153C and its mandatory procedure. The court found that no search had been conducted at the assessee's premises and that the jurisdictional basis for search-linked reassessment was absent. The notice, assessment order and demand founded on Section 153A were therefore beyond jurisdiction and were quashed.

---

---

Issues: Whether proceedings under Section 153A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 were valid where no search authorization was issued in the assessee's name and the assessee's name appeared only in the panchnama drawn at another entity's premises; and whether, on the facts, the proper course was to proceed under Section 153C of the Income-tax Act, 1961.

Analysis: The writ court entertained the challenge on the ground that the controversy went to the very jurisdiction for initiating search-based reassessment, a matter that could be examined despite the availability of an appellate remedy. It was found that the panchnama prepared at the premises of another company could not, by itself, establish authorization to search the petitioner. The record showed no search authorization against the petitioner and no search at its own premises. Since the statutory scheme requires that material belonging to or relating to a person other than the searched person be dealt with under Section 153C, the respondents were bound to follow that specific procedure rather than invoke Section 153A afresh. The second assessment proceedings were therefore founded on an procedural basis and were beyond jurisdiction.

Conclusion: The invocation of Section 153A against the petitioner was invalid, and the proceedings, notice, assessment order and demand notice founded on that invocation were held to be without jurisdiction and liable to be quashed.

Final Conclusion: The impugned search-linked reassessment action could not be sustained because the statutory route applicable to material relating to a person other than the searched person was not followed, resulting in the quashing of the entire proceedings.

Ratio Decidendi: Where no search authorization exists against a person and that person's name appears only in a panchnama drawn at another premises, reassessment cannot be initiated under Section 153A; the Revenue must proceed, if at all, under Section 153C in accordance with the statute's mandatory procedure.

---