Person-centric search under tax law and consolidated satisfaction note upheld for Section 153C proceedings.

Search under Section 132 is person-centric, not merely premises-centric: the person against whom satisfaction is recorded is the searched person, and search of another's premises does not by itself enable Section 153A. For Section 153C, a consolidated satisfaction note is sufficient where the same Assessing Officer is involved, and separate year-wise satisfaction notes are not required. The challenge was also vulnerable on laches due to substantial delay. On that basis, the Section 153C notices were restored and the writ challenge failed.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether a search under Section 132 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 is person-centric or premises-centric, and whether the respondent whose premises were searched could be treated as the searched person for invoking Section 153A. (ii) Whether proceedings under Section 153C required separate satisfaction notes for each assessment year and whether the writ petition was liable to be dismissed on laches.

Issue (i): Whether a search under Section 132 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 is person-centric or premises-centric, and whether the respondent whose premises were searched could be treated as the searched person for invoking Section 153A.

Analysis: Section 132 distinguishes between the person in respect of whom the competent authority records reason to believe under clauses (a) to (c) and the premises where books, documents, money, bullion, jewellery or other valuables are suspected to be kept under clauses (i) to (v). The warrant of authorisation identifies the person against whom satisfaction is recorded, while the place searched may belong to or be occupied by another. The respondent's premises having been searched did not, by itself, make him the searched person. The statutory trigger for Section 153A is initiation of search in the case of a person under Section 132, not merely search of premises.

Conclusion: The search was held to be person-centric, the respondent was held not to be the searched person, and proceedings under Section 153A were not available to the respondent on that basis.

Issue (ii): Whether proceedings under Section 153C required separate satisfaction notes for each assessment year and whether the writ petition was liable to be dismissed on laches.

Analysis: Section 153C, being a machinery provision, requires recorded satisfaction that seized material belongs to or pertains to a person other than the searched person, and a consolidated satisfaction note is sufficient when the same Assessing Officer is involved. No separate satisfaction note for each assessment year is mandated. The writ petition was also filed after substantial delay, and the challenge was therefore vulnerable on the ground of laches.

Conclusion: The consolidated satisfaction note was held valid and a separate year-wise note was not required. The writ petition was liable to be rejected on laches as well.

Final Conclusion: The appeal succeeded, the writ petition was dismissed, and the notices issued under Section 153C were restored.

Ratio Decidendi: For search cases under the Income-tax Act, the identity of the searched person is determined by the person against whom satisfaction is recorded under Section 132, not by mere search of premises; and a valid consolidated satisfaction under Section 153C is sufficient where the seized material is referred to the other person.

---