A person may only be assessed under Section 153C of the Income Tax Act if they are not the 'searched person'; procedural safeguards must precede assessment actions.

ORDER :

S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR, J.

1. In this petition, petitioner seeks quashing of the impugned Notice issued by the 1^st respondent to the petitioner for the assessment year 2018-19 under Section 153C of the Income Act, 1961 (for short ‘the I.T. Act’) and for other reliefs.

2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondents – Revenue and perused the material on record.

3. A perusal of the material on record will indicate that on 25.04.2018, the respondents obtained a warrant of authorization under Section 132 of the I.T. Act and Rule 112 of the I.T. Rules in relation to one J.Babuji and in respect of residential premises of the petitioner at No.48, 15^th Cross, Nimishamba Layout, Mysore. In pursuance of the same, the respondents conducted a search in the aforesaid premises of the petitioner during the period from 25.04.2018 to 26.04.2018 and recorded the statement of the petitioner, pursuant to which, the respondents prepared a satisfaction note recording reasons for initiating action against the petitioner under Section 153C of the I.T. Act, in pursuance of which, the 1^st respondent issued the impugned notice under Section 153C of the I.T. Act to the petitioner. Subsequently on 01.10.2020, the petitioner filed his objections for re-opening assessment under Section 153C and the said objections were disposed of vide order dated 10.02.2021 passed by the 2^nd respondent holding that the said notice under Section 153C was valid. Aggrieved by the aforesaid notice and order, the petitioner is before this Court by way of the present petition.

4. In addition to reiterating the various contentions urged in the petition and referring to the material on record, learned counsel for the petitioner submits the issue in controversy is directly and squarely covered by a judgment of this court in the case of C.R. Ram Mohan Raju vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax in W.P. No.33057 of 2024 dated 27.10.2025.

5. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents – revenue would reiterate the various contentions urged in the statement of objections and submit that the search warrant was issued to search J.Babuji, who was the searched person and merely because search was conducted in the premises of the petitioner, he cannot be construed or treated as a searched person but had to be considered as a non-searched person / such other person as contemplated under Section 153C of the I.T. Act and as such, there is no merit in the petition and the same is liable to be dismissed.

6. I have given my anxious consideration to the rival submissions and perused the material on record. The counsel for the petitioner is right in contending that the issue in controversy is directly and squarely covered by a judgment of this court in the case of C.R. Ram Mohan Raju’ s case supra, which reads as under:

“7. Before adverting to the rival submissions, it would be apposite to extract the satisfaction note prepared by the 1^st respondent for initiating action against the petitioner under Section 153C of the I.T.Act, which is as under:-

“Reasons for initiating action u/s. 153C of Income Tax Act, 1961 in the case of Shri CR Rammohan Raju

Search & seizure action u/s 132 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 was carried out in the case of Shri K Narayan Raju on 14.09.2017. The residence of Shri C R Rammohan Raju at No 24, Lakshmi Niwas, 4th Cross Road, KR Layout, J Nagar, 6th phase, Bangalore was also searched in this regard and various documents as per Panchanama dated 16.09.2017 were seized and statement u/s 132(4) of IT Act of Shri C R Rammohan Raju was recorded on 14.09.2017. In the statement, he was confronted with the documents seized during the course of the search. Further an amount of Rs.77,00,000/- was found and seized from locker belonging