Section 153C jurisdiction fails without a year-wise link between seized material and the assessee in the satisfaction note.

Under section 153C of the Income-tax Act, jurisdiction is valid only where the satisfaction note specifically and year-wise links seized material to the relevant assessment year and the assessee. A consolidated, vague note that does not identify the incriminating documents or explain how they belong to or pertain to the assessee fails this requirement. Here, the recorded satisfaction did not provide the necessary correlation with the year under appeal, so the jurisdictional foundation was not established. The assumption of jurisdiction was therefore invalid, and the additions made in the assessment could not be sustained.

---

---

Issues: Whether the assumption of jurisdiction under section 153C of the Income-tax Act, 1961 was valid on the basis of the recorded satisfaction note, and whether the assessment additions could survive once such jurisdiction was held to be invalid.

Analysis: The satisfaction note was found to be a consolidated and vague recording for multiple assessment years without correlating any specific seized document to the relevant assessment year or to the assessee in a year-wise manner. It did not identify the material said to be incriminating, nor did it explain how the seized documents were said to belong to, or pertain to, the assessee for the year under appeal. The reasoning also noted that the documents relied upon were not shown to be incriminating for the relevant year, and that the jurisdictional foundation under section 153C had therefore not been established in accordance with settled requirements.

Conclusion: The assumption of jurisdiction under section 153C was invalid and the additions could not be sustained.

Ratio Decidendi: For a valid assumption of jurisdiction under section 153C, the satisfaction note must specifically and year-wise link the seized material to the relevant assessment year and the assessee; a vague consolidated note without such correlation vitiates the jurisdiction.

---