CAV JUDGMENT (PER : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.R. SHAH) [1.0] By way of this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, petitioners have prayed for an appropriate writ, direction and order to quash the warrant of authorization issued under Section 132 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [hereinafter referred to as “Act”]; to quash the assessment order dated 11.09.2003 framed under Section 158BC of the Act and to quash the notices dated 04.11.2003 issued under Section 158BD of the Act. [2.0] Facts leading to the present Special Civil Application in nutshell are as under: [2.1] It is the case on behalf of the petitioners that petitioner No.1 is the son of Late Shri Girishbhai K. Mehta [hereinafter referred to as “deceased person”] who passed away on 11.10.1998. It is the case on behalf of the petitioners that on 27.09.2001 the respondent No.1 – Director of Investigation, Ahmedabad issued search warrant in the name of deceased person and pursuant thereto searched residential premises of the petitioners and seized cash of Rs.25,000/as also various documents. It is the case on behalf of the petitioners that respondent No.1 might have recorded reasons to believe as contemplated under Section 132 of the Act, that the deceased person is required to be searched and therefore, search and seizure actions were initiated on 27.09.2001 against the deceased person. That thereafter a warrant of panchnama came to be drawn in the name of deceased person. It is the case on behalf of the petitioners that immediately on seeing the authorization it was pointed out by the petitioner No.1 to the search party that the person in whose name the search warrant is issued has passed away long back and therefore, no search can be effected. It is the case on behalf of the petitioners that despite the same the search and seizure proceedings continued though the search party took note of the said fact inasmuch as list of investments and seized papers prepared subsequently carried the heading “Late Shri Girishbhai K. Mehta”. [2.2] That thereafter the respondent No.2 issued the notice under Section 158BC of the Act and framed the assessment under section 158BC of the Act by Assessment Order dated 11.09.2003 determining the total undisclosed income of the deceased person at Rs.NIL. [2.2] That thereafter the respondent No.2 issued the notice under Section 158BC of the Act and framed the assessment under section 158BC of the Act by Assessment Order dated 11.09.2003 determining the total undisclosed income of the deceased person at Rs.NIL. [2.3] That thereafter the respondent No.3 has issued the notices under Section 158BD of the Act dated 04.11.2003 served upon the petitioners on 05.11.2003 directing them to file their block assessment returns of income so as to permit the block assessment under Section 158BD read with section 158BC of the Act. At that stage the petitioners have preferred the present special civil application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the aforesaid reliefs. [3.0] Shri S.N. Soparkar, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners has vehemently submitted that as such the action of the respondents herein in issuing authorization for search under Section 132 of the Act in the name of deceased person is patently bad and illegal. It is submitted that in the present case deceased person died on 11.10.1998 and search operation was carried on 27.09.2001 which clearly indicates that none of the three prerequisites for issuing authorization under Section 132 of the Act were satisfied. It is submitted by Shri Soparkar, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners that for the purpose of issuing authorization under section 132 of the Act; (a) there has to be an existing person to whom summons under section 131 or notice under section 142(1) of the Act to produce books of accounts or any documents has been issued and he has failed to produce the same or; (b) there has to be an existing person to whom if summons under section 131 or notice under section 142(1) of Act to produce books of accounts or any documents is issued, he will not or would not produce the same or; (c) such existing person is in possession of any money, bullion, jewellery or other valuable thing which has not been or would not be disclosed for the purpose of the Act. Shri Soparkar, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners has submitted that none of the above condition would have been fulfilled against the deceased person and hence the search operation carried out by the respondent is dehors the provision of law in as much as none of the prerequisite conditions for issuing authorization under section 132 of the Act were fulfilled. In support of his above submissions, Shri Soparkar, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners has relied upon the decision of the Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case of CIT v. Rakesh Kumar, Mukesh Kumar reported in 313 ITR 305 (P&H) and Commissioner of Income Tax, Karnal v. Moti Ram reported in 316 ITR 321. [3.1] It is further submitted that the authorization under Section 132 of the Act can be issued only if an authorizing person has, in consequence of the information in his possession, has reason to believe that the search is required. It is submitted that the word “information” has to be construed as concrete, cogent, accurate and tangible piece of information. It is submitted that here in the present case there was no such information in possession of the respondent to form a belief that search is required. It is submitted that therefore even otherwise the search operation undertaken against the deceased person fails. [3.2] Now, so far as challenge to the assessment order under Section 158BC and the notices issued upon the petitioners under section 158BD are concerned, it is submitted that the same are absolutely illegal. It is submitted by Shri Soparkar, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners that a valid search under section 132 of the Act is sine qua non for invoking block assessment proceedings under Chapter XIVB. It is submitted that once the search carried out under section 132 of the Act is held invalid, all the resultant actions carried out pursuant to the search operation fails. It is further submitted that once the authorization issued for search under section 132 is declared to be illegal, the search can no longer be valid and hence, chapter XIVB of the Act will become inapplicable. It is submitted that therefore any consequential assessment undertaken pursuant to illegal search operation must also fail. It is further submitted that once the authorization issued for search under section 132 is declared to be illegal, the search can no longer be valid and hence, chapter XIVB of the Act will become inapplicable. It is submitted that therefore any consequential assessment undertaken pursuant to illegal search operation must also fail. It is further submitted by Shri Soparkar, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners that in the present case assessment order dated 11.09.2003 framed under Section 158BC and the notices issued under Section 158BD of the Act are illegal and arbitrary since they are issued on the basis of search under Section 132 of the Act which itself was illegal. Therefore, it is requested to quash and set aside the impugned assessment order dated 11.09.2003 framed under Section 158BC of the Act and the notices issued under section 158BD of the Act on the aforesaid ground alone. [3.3] Shri Soparkar, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners has heavily relied upon the following decisions in support of his request to allow the present special civil application and grant the reliefs as prayed for. 1. Manish Maheshwari v. ACIT 289 ITR 341 (SC) 2. ACIT, Chennai v. A.R. Enterprises 350 ITR 489 (SC) 3. (Guj) DCIT v. Lalitkumar M. Patel 222 Taxmann 96 (Tax Appeal No.192 of 2012) 4. Ajit Jain v. Union of India 242 ITR 302 5. Union of India v. Ajit Jain 260 ITR 80 (SC) Making above submissions and relying upon above decisions, it is requested to allow the present Special Civil Application. [4.0] Present petition is vehemently opposed by Shri M.R. Bhatt, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent Department. [4.1] It is submitted that as such as a part of search in one Nirma Group, the residential premises of deceased person, father of the petitioner No.1 was covered under section 132 of the Act. It is submitted that the said deceased person was a closely trusted person of the promoter of Nirma Group and was also Director in the investment company of the group. It is submitted that the search warrant was issued for the premises i.e. 9, “Gayatri”, Motinagar Society. It is submitted that the said deceased person was also brother in law of one Shri R.D. Shah, one of the key persons and Tax Advisor of the group. It is submitted that the search warrant was issued for the premises i.e. 9, “Gayatri”, Motinagar Society. It is submitted that the said deceased person was also brother in law of one Shri R.D. Shah, one of the key persons and Tax Advisor of the group. It is submitted that in light of the aforesaid proximity such search warrant was issued for the aforesaid premises and as required it bears the name of the head of the family, however, all the occupants of the premises were subjected to provisions of section 132 of the Act. It is submitted that as such in the said proceedings no objection was taken by the petitioners and on the contrary panchnama was signed by the petitioner No.1 claiming to be the heir of deceased person. It is submitted that therefore warrants have been issued for the premises, the contention on behalf of the petitioners that it was issued for the deceased person is incorrect. It is submitted that petitioners have therefore acquiesced to the issuance of the authorization under section 132 of the Act. It is submitted by Shri Bhatt, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Department that though the authorization was issued on 27.09.2001, the petitioners preferred the present special civil application challenging the said authorization only in January 2004 and that too after the assessment order dated 11.09.2003 framed under Section 158BC of the Act and the impugned notices are issued under section 158BD of the Act. It is further submitted by Shri Bhatt, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Department that initially when the petition was filed the same was in the name of individual persons and not in the capacity of heirs of deceased person. It is submitted that only pursuant to the amendment granted on 18.03.2014 that the petitioners are claiming to have filed the petition in the capacity of heirs of deceased person. It is submitted that therefore the petitioners in their individual capacity have no locus to challenge the authorization issued for the premises or in the name of deceased person. [4.2] It is further submitted by Shri Bhatt, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Department that as a necessary consequence of the authorization having been issued under Section 132 of the Act, the proceedings under Section 158BC of the Act were rightly initiated, in view of the said mandatory provisions. [4.2] It is further submitted by Shri Bhatt, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Department that as a necessary consequence of the authorization having been issued under Section 132 of the Act, the proceedings under Section 158BC of the Act were rightly initiated, in view of the said mandatory provisions. It is submitted that even in the proceedings under Section 158BC of the Act, no protest was raised by the petitioners and on the contrary, return of the income for the block period was filed on 03.10.2002 and the same was signed by the petitioner No.1 and thereafter the assessment order came to be passed on 11.09.2003. [4.3] Now, with regard to the challenge to the notice under Section 158BD of the Act and served upon the petitioners is concerned, it is submitted that as required under the law, the satisfaction was reached by the AO of the searched person that the undisclosed income belongs to the third person i.e. the petitioners. It is submitted that such a satisfaction was reached on 01.09.2003, i.e. during the course of the proceedings under Section 158BC of the Act. It is submitted that accordingly, after recording satisfaction on 01.09.2003, the seized assets/documents were handed over to the AO having jurisdiction over the petitioners and thereafter, the said AO has finalized the assessments. It is submitted that however the same have not been given effect pursuant to the interim order passed by this Court. [4.4] It is submitted that as such pursuant to the notice under Section 158BD of the Act, petitioners in fact filed return of income and accepted the jurisdiction of the AO. It is submitted that therefore it is not open for the petitioners to challenge the notice under Section 158BD of the Act. [4.5] It is submitted that Chapter XIVB deals with special procedure for assessment of search cases. It is submitted that clause (b) of section 158B defines undisclosed income. The computation of undisclosed income of the block period is to be done as per section 158BB of the Act. It is submitted that assessment for the block period in respect of the searched person is to be carried out under Section 158BC. It is submitted that section 158BC requires a valid search to be conducted. As against that section 158BD is an independent provision dealing with undisclosed income of “any other person”. It is submitted that assessment for the block period in respect of the searched person is to be carried out under Section 158BC. It is submitted that section 158BC requires a valid search to be conducted. As against that section 158BD is an independent provision dealing with undisclosed income of “any other person”. It is submitted that AO under Section 158BC of the Act in respect of searched person is with regard to undisclosed income of the searched person and the same is not at all connected with the undisclosed income of ‘other person’ as per section 158BD of the Act. The only mandatory requirement of section 158BD of the Act is that the AO of the searched person should be satisfied that undisclosed income belongs to ‘other person’ and upon recording this satisfaction, the books of accounts, etc. are required to be handed over to the AO of the ‘other person’. It is submitted that once these two mandatory requirements / conditions are fulfilled, the AO of the ‘other person’, is under a mandate to proceed against other person. It is submitted that therefore it is incorrect on the part of the petitioners to contend that if the search is held to be invalid the proceedings in the case of ‘other person’ cannot be undertaken. It is submitted that if the petitioners’ contention is accepted it would amount to reading something more than provided under Section 158BD, which is not permissible. Relying upon decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT v. Ms. Calcutta Knitwear reported in 362 ITR 673 (SC) more particularly paras 23, 29, 34, 35, 37, 38, 41 and 44, it is submitted that the Hon’ble Supreme Court has not held that a valid search is sine qua non to proceedings under section 158BD of the Act. [4.6] Now, so far as the reliance placed upon the decision reported in 242 ITR 302 (Delhi) as confirmed in 260 ITR 80 (SC), 339 ITR 290 (Karnataka) and 350 ITR 489 (SC) by the learned Counsel for the petitioners is concerned, it is submitted that the aforesaid decisions would not be applicable to the facts of the case on hand. It is submitted that it is a settled proposition of law that a decision is an authority for what it actually decides and not necessarily for what logical follows from it. It is submitted that it is a settled proposition of law that a decision is an authority for what it actually decides and not necessarily for what logical follows from it. It is further submitted that a decision to be law under Article 141 must not be a mere conclusion by which the case is disposed of. Because, conclusion may be on facts, it may not and does not necessarily involve consideration of law. It is submitted that it is well settled that Article 141 will not be attracted if law is not declared or settled vocally to support the conclusion reached for deciding the lis. In support of his above submissions, Shri Bhatt, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Department has relied upon the decisions in the case of Manager, Panjarapole, Deodar v. Chakaram Moraji Nat & Anr. reported in (1997)2 GLR 1321 as well as in the case of Commissioner of IncomeTax v. Baroda Peoples Cooperative Bank Ltd. reported in [2006]280 ITR 282 (Guj.). [4.7] It is further submitted that the decision in the case of Ajit Jain (Supra) reported in 242 ITR 302 (Delhi) was with regard to challenge to authorization under section 132 and consequential assessment under section 158BC. It is submitted that in the aforesaid decision the Hon’ble Court on facts had held that upon quashing of the authorization under section 132, the consequential assessment under section 158BC was also required to be quashed. It is submitted that there cannot be any dispute to the said proposition inasmuch as, section 158BC assessment is directly relatable to and dependent upon a valid authorization under section 132 of the Act. It is submitted that similar is the issue in the decision reported in 339 ITR 210 (Karnataka). [4.8] It is further submitted by Shri Bhatt, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Department that the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax, Chennai v. A.R. Enterprises reported in [2013] 350 ITR 489 is distinguishable on facts. It is submitted that in the said decision the issue posed for consideration by the Hon’ble Supreme Court was that when advance tax had been paid, whether the relatable income could be deemed to be undisclosed in terms of Clause (b) of section 158B. It is submitted that in the said decision the issue posed for consideration by the Hon’ble Supreme Court was that when advance tax had been paid, whether the relatable income could be deemed to be undisclosed in terms of Clause (b) of section 158B. It is further submitted that it is therefore not open for the petitioners to pick up one sentence from the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court. [4.9] It is further submitted by Shri Bhatt, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Department that in the instant case the assessment has already finalized and therefore, in view of the alternative remedy being available, the petitioners may be relegated to the statutory remedy under the Act. In support of his above submissions, he has relied upon the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT v. Chhabil Dass Agarwal reported in 357 ITR 357 (SC). [4.10] It is further submitted by Shri Bhatt, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Department that in the alternative and without prejudice to the above, in the event, this Court is of the opinion that section 158BD proceedings are invalid, a finding / direction as contemplated under Section 150 of the Act may kindly be issued so that the Department can take remedial action under section 147 read with section 150, as in view of the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Pooran Mal v. Director of Inspection (Investigation), Income-Tax, New Delhi & Ors. reported in 1993 ITR 505 (SC) even in the case of invalid search, the material collected therefrom can be utilized in related proceedings. Making above submissions and relying upon above decisions, it is requested to dismiss the present petition. [5.0] Heard learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the respective parties at length. At the outset it is required to be noted that when the petition was filed, the same was filed in the name of individual persons and not in the capacity of heirs of deceased person. Thereafter, by way of amendment the petitioners were permitted to amend the cause title by describing them as heirs of deceased person also. At the outset it is required to be noted that when the petition was filed, the same was filed in the name of individual persons and not in the capacity of heirs of deceased person. Thereafter, by way of amendment the petitioners were permitted to amend the cause title by describing them as heirs of deceased person also. As noted hereinabove the respective petitioners have prayed (a) to quash the warrant of authorization issued under Section 132 of the Act; (b) to quash the assessment order dated 11.09.2003 framed under Section 158BC of the Act and (c) to quash the notices dated 04.11.2003 issued under Section 158BD of the Act. [5.1] Now, so far as challenge to the warrant of authorization issued under Section 132 of the Act and consequently to quash the assessment order dated 11.09.2003 framed under Section 158BC of the Act is concerned, the same is mainly on the ground that the said warrant of authorization issued under Section 132 of the Act was in the name of a dead person i.e. Late Shri Girishbhai K. Mehta and therefore, the warrant of authorization issued under section 132 of the Act and subsequent assessment order dated 11.09.2003 framed under Section 158BC of the Act are illegal. Now, so far as challenge to the impugned notices dated 04.11.2003 issued under Section 158BD of the Act is on the ground that as the warrant of authorization issued under section 132 of the Act is per se illegal as it was against a dead person, the search can no longer be valid and therefore, chapter XIVB of the Act will not become inapplicable. To appreciate the above object, purpose and interest of enacting section 158 of the Act are required to be considered. The object, purpose and the intention of the legislature for enacting section 158BD of the Act came to be considered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the recent decision in the case of Calcutta Knitwears (Supra). [5.2] In order to resolve the controversy, certain provisions of the Act are required to be noticed which also came to be considered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Calcutta Knitwears (Supra) in paras 19 to 23. “19. Chapter XIVB of the Act is a special provision carved out by the legislature for the purpose of the assessments in cases pertaining to Sections 132 and 132A of the Act. “19. Chapter XIVB of the Act is a special provision carved out by the legislature for the purpose of the assessments in cases pertaining to Sections 132 and 132A of the Act. The said chapter was introduced by the Finance Act, 1995 with effect from 01.07.1995 and comprises Sections 158B to 158BH of the Act. The provisions under this Chapter were made inapplicable in case of search initiated under Section 132 or Section 132A after 31.05.2003 by introduction of an amendment to the Chapter as Section 158BI vide the Finance Act, 2003 with effect from 01.06.2003. The lis before us requires examination of the provisions of the said Chapter, particularly Section 158BD. 20. Section 158B of the Act is the dictionary clause. It provides for the definition of “block period” and “undisclosed income”. For the purpose of this case, a reference to the definition of the “undisclosed income” as provided for in Section 158B(b) is necessary and, therefore, it is noticed. The same reads as under: “Undisclosed income" includes any money, bullion, jewellery or other valuable article or thing or any income based on any entry in the books of account or other documents or transactions, where such money, bullion, jewellery, valuable article, thing, entry in the books of account or other document or transaction represents wholly or partly income or property which has not been or would not have been disclosed for the purposes of this Act [or any expense, deduction or allowance claimed under this Act which is found to be false]”. 21. Sections 158BC and 158BD of the Act are machinery provisions. Section 158BC of the Act provides the procedure for block assessment and Section 158BD of the Act provides for assessments in the case of an undisclosed income of any other person. The said sections are relevant for the purpose of this case and, therefore, they are extracted. They read as under: “Section 158BC. Procedure for block assessment. Section 158BC of the Act provides the procedure for block assessment and Section 158BD of the Act provides for assessments in the case of an undisclosed income of any other person. The said sections are relevant for the purpose of this case and, therefore, they are extracted. They read as under: “Section 158BC. Procedure for block assessment. Where any search has been conducted under section 132 or books of account, other documents or assets are requisitioned under section 132A, in the case of any person, then, (a) The Assessing Officer shall, (i) In respect of search initiated or books of account or other documents or any assets requisitioned after the 30th day of June, 1995 but before the 1st day of January, 1997 serve a notice to such person requiring him to furnish within such time not being less than fifteen days; (ii) In respect of search initiated or books of account or other documents or any assets requisitioned on or after the 1st day of January, 1997, serve a notice to such person requiring him to furnish within such time not being less than fifteen days but not more than fortyfive days, as may be specified in the notice a return in the prescribed form and verified in the same manner as a return under clause (i) of subsection (1) of section 142, setting forth his total income including the undisclosed income for the block period: Provided that no notice under section 148 is required to be issued for the purpose of proceeding under this Chapter: Provided further that a person who has furnished a return under this clause shall not be entitled to file a revised return;] (b) The Assessing Officer shall proceed to determine the undisclosed income of the block period in the manner laid down in section 158BB and the provisions of section 142, subsections (2) and (3) of section 143 [section 144 and section 145] shall, so far as may be, apply; (c) The Assessing Officer, on determination of the undisclosed income of the block period in accordance with this Chapter, shall pass an order of assessment and determine the tax payable by him on the basis of such assessment; (d) The assets seized under section 132 or requisitioned under section 132A shall be dealt with in accordance with the provisions of section 132B.] Section 158BD. Undisclosed income of any other person. Undisclosed income of any other person. Where the Assessing Officer is satisfied that any undisclosed income belongs to any person, other than the person with respect to whom search was made under section 132 or whose books of account or other documents or any assets were requisitioned under section 132A then, the books of account, other documents or assets seized or requisitioned shall be handed over to the Assessing Officer having jurisdiction over such other person and that Assessing Officer shall proceed [under section 158 BC] against such other person and the provisions of this Chapter shall apply accordingly.” 22. Section 158BC speaks of procedure for assessment of a person searched under Section 132 of the Act or books of accounts, other documents or assets are requisitioned under section 132A. The limitation for the purpose of completion of the block assessments for the purpose of Section 158BC of the Act is as provided under Section 158BE(1)(a) of the Act, that is the time limit for completion of block assessment. 23. Section 158BD of the Act provides for “undisclosed income” of any other person. The aforesaid provisions of the Act has been considered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the aforesaid decision in the case of Calcutta Knitwears (Supra). In the aforesaid decision the Hon’ble Supreme Court has observed and held that provisions of section 158BD of the Act is a machinery provision and inserted in the statute book for the purpose of carrying out assessments of a person ‘other than the searched person’ under section 132 of the Act. It is observed that under section 158BD of the Act, if an officer is satisfied that there exists any undisclosed income which may belong to other person, other than the searched person under section 132A of the Act, after recording such satisfaction, may transmit the records/documents/chits/papers etc. to the assessing officer having jurisdiction over such other person and after receipt of the aforesaid satisfaction and upon examination of the said other documents relating to such other person, the jurisdictional AO may proceed to issue a notice for the purpose of completion of the assessments under Section 158BD of the Act, the other provisions of XIVB shall apply. to the assessing officer having jurisdiction over such other person and after receipt of the aforesaid satisfaction and upon examination of the said other documents relating to such other person, the jurisdictional AO may proceed to issue a notice for the purpose of completion of the assessments under Section 158BD of the Act, the other provisions of XIVB shall apply. It is further observed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court that the opening words of Section 158BD of the Act are that the AO must be satisfied that “undisclosed income” belong to any other person, other than the person with respect to whom a search was made under Section 132 of the Act or a requisition of books were made under Section 132A of the Act and thereafter, transmit the records for assessment of such other person. It is further observed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the said decision that before initiating proceedings under Section 158BC of the Act, the AO who has initiated proceedings for the completion of the assessment under Section 158BC of the Act should be satisfied that there is an undisclosed income which has been traced out when a person was searched under section 132 or the books of accounts were requisitioned under section 132A of the Act. It is further observed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the said decision that the aforesaid is in contrast to the provisions of section 148 of the Act where recording of the reasons in writing are sine qua non. Considering the aforesaid law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court challenge to the warrant of authorization issued under section 132 of the Act; the assessment order dated 11.09.2003 framed under section 158BC of the Act and challenge to the impugned notice dated 04.11.2003 issued under section 158BD of the Act is required to be considered. [5.3] It is the case on behalf of the petitioners that as the warrant of authorization issued under section 132 of the Act was against a dead person i.e. Late Shri Girishbhai K. Mehta, the said warrant of authorization is null and void as it is against a dead person and therefore, the consequential assessment order dated 11.09.2003 framed under section 158BC of the Act are to be held to be illegal. It is required to be noted and it is the specific case on behalf of the Department that as such as a part of search in Nirma Group, the residential premises of deceased person, father of the petitioner No.1 was covered under section 132 of the Act as the said deceased person was closely trusted person of the promoter of the Nirma Group and was also Director in an investment company of the group and therefore, the search warrant was issued for the premises i.e. 9, “Gayatri”, Motinagar Society. Therefore, as such the search warrant was issued for the premises, however such authorization was in the name of the head of the family – Late Shri Girishbhai K. Mehta. However, as such the search warrant was with respect to the premises i.e. 9, “Gayatri”, Motinagar Society and as part of the search in Nirma Group. At this stage it is required to be noted that at the time of search of the aforesaid premises, the petitioner No.1 infact signed the panchnama, claiming to be the heir of deceased person. Not only that even thereafter when the proceedings under section 158BC of the Act came to be initiated, no protest was raised by the petitioners and on the contrary, the returns of the income for the block period was filed on 03.10.2002 and the same was also signed by the petitioner No.1 and thereafter the assessment order determining the income as “NIL” has been passed on 11.09.2003. Under the circumstances, when the search warrant was issued, it was for the premises and as such as a part of search in Nirma Group, it cannot be said that such search warrant was null and void as sought to be contended on behalf of the petitioners. Therefore, the decisions relied upon by Shri Soparkar, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners referred to hereinabove of the Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case of Rakesh Kumar, Mukesh Kumar (Supra) and in the case of Motiram (Supra), would not be applicable to the facts of the case on hand. Therefore, the decisions relied upon by Shri Soparkar, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners referred to hereinabove of the Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case of Rakesh Kumar, Mukesh Kumar (Supra) and in the case of Motiram (Supra), would not be applicable to the facts of the case on hand. [5.4] Now, assuming without prejudice to the above that the authorization for search under section 132 of the Act is found to be bad and illegal as the same was against the dead person, the next question which is posed for consideration of this Court is whether during the search under section 132 of the Act, the AO finds that any undisclosed income belongs to any person other than the person with respect to whom the search was made under section 132 of the Act or whose books of account or other documents or any assets were requisitioned under section 132A of the Act is traced out, the proceedings under section 158BD of the Act against any other person, other than the person with respect to whom the search was made would be permissible and/or maintainable or not? It is the contention on behalf of the petitioners that as there was no valid search and/or legal search under section 132 of the Act and therefore, the impugned notices under Section 158BD of the Act on the basis of material with respect to undisclosed income found against other persons, during the course of such search would not be permissible and/or maintainable. The aforesaid has no substance and cannot be accepted. It is required to be noted that in section 158BD of the Act, there is no such word/language used that it must be a legal and/or valid search under section 132 of the Act. If the submission on behalf of the petitioners is accepted in that case it would be adding word “legal and valid” in section 158BD, which is not permissible. As observed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Calcutta Knitwears (Supra) that the courts while interpreting the provisions of fiscal legislation should neither add nor subtract a word from the provisions of instant meaning of the sections. It is further observed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the said decision that in taxing statutes even if the literal interpretation results in hardship or inconvenience, it has to be followed. It is further observed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the said decision that in taxing statutes even if the literal interpretation results in hardship or inconvenience, it has to be followed. It is further observed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the said decision that any taxing statute should ordinarily be read, understood in the sense in which it is harmonious with the object of the statute to effectuate the legislative animation. It is further observed that a taxing statute should be strictly construed; and common sense approach, equity, logic, ethics and morality have no role to play. It is observed that nothing is to be read in, nothing is to be implied; one can only look fairly at the language used and nothing more and nothing less. It is further observed that while interpreting the machinery provision, the courts would interpret a provision in such a way that it would give meaning to the charging provisions and that the machinery provisions are liberally construed by the courts. It is further observed that machinery provisions must, be so construed as would effectuate the object and purpose of the statute and not defeat the same. [5.5] Now, considering the aforesaid propositions of law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, the provisions of section 158BD of the Act and the issue/controversy raised in the present Special Civil Application is required to be considered. Section 158BD of the Act is held to be a machinery provision and inserted in the statute book for the purpose of carrying out assessments of a person other than the searched person under section 132 or 132A of the Act. The special provisions under Chapter XIVB more particularly section 158BD of the Act are devised to operate in the distinct field of undisclosed income and are clearly in addition to the regular assessments covering the previous orders falling in the block period, intended to provide a mode of assessment of undisclosed income, which has been detected as a result of search. A bare reading of the section 158BD of the Act makes it clear that for invoking a block assessment, there must be a search conducted under section 132 of the Act, or documents or assessed requisitioned under section 132A and the AO is satisfied that there exists any undisclosed income which may belong to other person other than the person with respect to whom the search was conducted or requisition was made. Therefore, when during the course of a search conducted under section 132 of the Act or from the documents or assessed requisitioned under section 132A the AO finds that there exists any undisclosed income of a person other than the person with respect to whom a search was conducted, such other person is subjected to block assessment under section 158BD of the Act. Section 158BD of the Act does not speak about a valid search conducted under section 132 of the Act. The moment any undisclosed income of a person other than the person with respect to whom the search was conducted or a requisition was made is traced out and/or detected and the AO is satisfied that there exists any undisclosed income of a person other than a person searched under section 132 or 132A, section 158BD would be attracted an such other person with respect to whom undisclosed income is traced out is subjected to block assessment under section 158BD of the Act. Any other view more particularly contention on behalf of the petitioners is accepted, in that case, it would be defeat the object and purpose of enacting section 158BD of the Act. Even otherwise the word used under section 158BD of the Act is “where the AO is satisfied that any undisclosed belongings to any person, other than the person with respect to whom search was made under section 132” and it does not say that “where the AO is satisfied that any undisclosed income belongs to any person, other than the person with respect to whom the valid and legal search was made under section 132”. Under the circumstances and assuming without prejudice to the aforesaid findings with respect to the authorization under section 132 of the Act, that the search was against a dead person and not valid, in that case also, the block assessment proceedings initiated under section 158BD of the Act by the impugned notices cannot be said to be illegal and/or contrary to the provisions of the statute. [5.6] Now, so far as the reliance placed upon the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of A.R. Enterprises (Supra) is concerned, it appears that the said decision would not be applicable to the facts of the case on hand. In the case before the Hon’ble Supreme Court, the question was with respect to “undisclosed income” and the question was whether the payment of advance tax by an assessee would by itself tantamount to disclosure of income for the relevant assessment year and whether such income can be treated as undisclosed income for the purpose of application of chapter XIVB of the Act. Before the Hon’ble Supreme Court, there was no such question which is posed for consideration before this Court. [5.7] Now, so far as the reliance placed upon the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Manish Maheshwari (Supra) is concerned, said decision also will not be applicable to the facts of the case on hand. In the case before the Hon’ble Supreme Court, it was found by the Hon’ble Supreme Court that the notice for block assessment under section 158BD of the Act had not satisfied requirement of section 158BD of the Act as the said notice did not record any satisfaction on the part of the AO and even the documents seized was not handed over to the AO having jurisdiction in the matter. Therefore, it was the case of nonfulfilling the requirements as provided under section 158BD of the Act. Therefore, it was the case of nonfulfilling the requirements as provided under section 158BD of the Act. [5.8] In the present case as a part of search in Nirma group the search was carried out with respect to the premises i.e. 9, “Gayatri”, Motinagar Society and during the search a satisfaction has been reached by the AO of the searched person/premises that the undisclosed income belong to the third person (other than the person searched) – petitioners and such a satisfaction was reached on 01.09.2003 i.e. during the course of proceedings under section 158BC of the Act and after recording such satisfaction on 01.09.2003, the seized assets/documents have been handed over to the AO having jurisdiction over the petitioners. Under the circumstances, as such all the conditions / requirements of section 158BD of the Act are satisfied. At this stage it is required to be noted that even thereafter the AO has finalized the block assessment under section 158BD of the Act against the respective petitioners, however, the same has not been given effect to, pursuant to the interim order passed by this Court in the present petition. [6.0] In view of the above and for the reasons stated above, the petitioners are not entitled to any reliefs as sought in the present Special Civil Application more particularly with respect to the challenge to the impugned notices under section 158BD of the Act. Under the circumstances, present Special Civil Application fails and the same deserves to be dismissed and is, accordingly, dismissed. Rule is discharged. Adinterim relief, if any, stands vacated forthwith. In the facts and circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs.