Sanjiv Khanna, J.

1. Having heard counsel for the parties, we frame the following two substantial questions of law :

“(1) Whether the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was right in recording that the name of the respondent-assessee Promain Ltd. was not mentioned in the warrant of authorization issued under Section 132 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 read with Rule 112 (2)(a) of the Income Tax Rules, 1962?

(2) Whether the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was right in recording the finding that no addition could have been made in the block assessment proceedings as the Assessing Officer has not relied upon any material collected/seized during the course of search?”

2. We have heard counsel for the parties and proceed to dictate our decision on the aforesaid questions.

3. Search under Section 132 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 („Act?, for short) was conducted on 21.11.1996 pursuant to the warrant of authorization. Thereafter, the block assessment order dated 28.11.1997 under Section 158BC of the Act for the period ending 21.11.1996 was passed in the case of the respondent-assessee. One of the grounds raised by the respondent-assessee before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal („Tribunal?,