Reserved on : 01.04.2026 Pronounced on : 24.04.2026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 24^TH DAY OF APRIL, 2026 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. V. ARAVIND WRIT APPEAL No. 382 OF 2026 (T-IT)

BETWEEN:

1. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(4), No.1, C.R. BUILDING, QUEENS ROAD, BENGALURU-560 001.

2. THE PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL RANGE-1, C.R. BUILDING, QUEEN'S ROAD, BENGALURU-560 001.

…APPELLANTS Digitally signed by (BY SRI. RAVI RAJ Y. V., SENIOR STANDING COUNSEL A/W VINUTHA B S SRI M. DILIP, STANDING COUNSEL)

Location:

High Court of Karnataka AND:

1. SRI C. R. RAM MOHAN RAJU, S/O. CHANGAMARAJU, AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS, RESIDING AT 24, 4^TH CROSS, K.R. LAYOUT, J.P. NAGAR, 6^TH PHASE, BENGALURU-560 078.

…RESPONDENT (BY SRI A. SHANKAR, SENIOR ADVOCATE A/W SRI CHANDRASEKHAR V., ADVOCATE)

THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER PASSED BY THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE IN WP No.

33057/2024 (T-IT) DATED 27.10.2025 THIS APPEAL HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED FOR JUDGMENT, COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT THIS DAY, K.V. ARAVIND J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:-

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT and HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. V. ARAVIND C.A.V. JUDGMENT (PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. V. ARAVIND)

Heard Sri Y.V. Raviraj, learned Senior Standing Counsel, along with Sri M. Dilip, learned Standing counsel for the appellants-Revenue and Sri A Shankar, learned Senior Counsel for Sri V. Chandrashekar, learned counsel for the respondent-

Assessee.

This intra-court appeal is filed by the Revenue, calling in question the order dated 27.10.2025 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.No.33057 of 2024. The present appeal is preferred under Section 4 of the Karnataka High Court Act, 1961.

FACTUAL MATRIX

2. The brief facts are that a search under Section 132 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short “Act”) was conducted on 14.09.2017 in the case of Sri K. Narayan Raju. Pursuant to the satisfaction recorded under Section 132 of the Act by the competent authority, having reason to suspect that books of account, documents, and other valuable articles or things belonging to Sri K. Narayan Raju were kept or secreted in the premises of the respondent, the residential premises of the respondent came to be searched.

2.1 Thereafter, the Assessing Officer of Sri K. Narayan Raju initiated proceedings under Section 153A of the Act. In the course of such proceedings, the Assessing Officer recorded satisfaction that the seized documents, books of account, and other materials belonged to the respondent and accordingly handed over the said material to the Assessing Officer of the respondent.

2.2 Upon due compliance with the requirements under Section 153C of the Act, the Assessing Officer of the respondent issued notice under Section 153C of the Act for the assessment years 2011–12 to 2018–19.

2.3 The notice issued under Section 153C of the Act was challenged in the writ petition on the ground that, since the premises of the respondent had been searched, the respondent ought to have been treated as a ‘searched person’ and proceedings should have been initiated under Section 153A of the Act instead of Section 153C of the Act.

2.4 The learned Single Judge, upon examining the satisfaction recorded under Section 153C of the Act, held that the panchanama discloses the name of Sri K. Narayan Raju as the person in whose name the warrant was issued. However, the respondent is shown as the owner of the residential premises which was subjected to search, as reflected in the panchanama. On that basis, the learned Single Judge concluded that the respondent is to be treated as a ‘searched person’ and not as an ‘other person’ within the meaning, scope, and ambit of Section 153C of the Act.

2.5 The learned Single Judge, placing reliance on the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Sunil Kumar Sharma v. ACIT, (2024) 159 taxmann.com 179, held that s