Judgment R. Sudhakar, J. 1. Aggrieved by the order of the Tribunal in allowing the appeal filed by the Revenue, the appellant/assessee is before this Court by filing the present appeal. This Court, vide order dated 29.08.06, while admitting the appeal, framed the following substantial questions of law for consideration :- "1. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is right in law in holding that the plea regarding jurisdiction is bereft of cogency? 2. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Tribunal ought not to have held that in the absence of the warrant of authorisation in the name of the appellant, the issue of notice under Section 158BC and consequently the block assessment made on the basis of the said notice is without jurisdiction and the said assessment is liable to be quashed? 3. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Tribunal is right in law in not quashing the assessment on the ground that it is not based on materials seized or found at the time of the search? 4. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is right in law in not deleting the income relating to the year 1995-96 from the block assessment on the ground that the due date for filing the return had not expired before the date of search and also on the ground that such income is duly disclosed before the search?" 2. The facts, in a nutshell, are as hereunder:- It appears that the Income Tax Department conducted a search invoking the provisions of Section 132 of the Income Tax Act (for short 'Act') on various premises of different textile dealers in Godown Street on 31.8.95 and on other dates. In the course of the said search operation, books of accounts and documents were seized from various dealers. It is also the case of the Department, which is not denied by the appellant herein, that a search was conducted insofar as the business premises of Nav Bharat Corporation at No.28, Godown Street, Madras-1. Based on the so called search proceedings initiated on various dealers, several assessment orders have been passed in respect of the said dealers of textiles invoking the provisions of Chapter XIV-B - Block Assessment. Based on the so called search proceedings initiated on various dealers, several assessment orders have been passed in respect of the said dealers of textiles invoking the provisions of Chapter XIV-B - Block Assessment. Insofar as the present appellant is concerned, assessment order came to be passed for the block assessment year 1986-1987 to 1995-1996 showing the address of the individual appellant - Rajkumari Chandak, 34, Godown Street, Chennai 600 001, and the assessment order reads as one under Section 143 (3) read with Section 158BC of the Act. Notice under Section 158BC (a) of the Act is said to have been issued on the assessee, copy of which is not available in the records, and return for the block period was filed by the assessee. Such documents, despite best efforts by either side, were not available. The assessment order for the block period was passed by the Income Tax Department and tax liability was determined at Rs.10,30,834/- insofar as this appellant is concerned. Many of the dealers, who suffered similar orders, filed appeals to the Tribunal, which came to be disposed of by a common order dated 12.4.99. 3. In para-2 of the said order of the Tribunal dated 12.4.99, the objection of all the assessees that the assessing officer had no jurisdiction to issue the notice under Section 158BC as there was no search or requisition made by the Income Tax Department have been recorded by the Tribunal. The said objections of the assessees is recorded based on an affidavit filed before the Tribunal that there was no search or requisition made by the Income Tax Department. The further stand of the assessees that on an earlier occasion, vide order dated 8.10.97 (ITA No.1925 & 1926/1996, etc.), the Tribunal cancelled the assessment on a similar plea has also been recorded by the Tribunal. Taking note of the assessees stand that there was no search or requisition and also taking note of the earlier order of the Tribunal, the Tribunal, vide its order dated 12.4.99, gave a finding that there was no search or requisition issued and that in the case of this assessee also, recorded that the search under Section 132 of the Act took place only in the case of Bojraj Chandak and Madanmohan Chandak. After recording the observations, the impugned assessment orders of all the appellants were set aside and the appeals were allowed. After recording the observations, the impugned assessment orders of all the appellants were set aside and the appeals were allowed. The relevant portion of the order of the Tribunal is extracted herein below for better clarity :- "2. We have heard both sides and perused the records. In these appeals, the block assessments were completed under Section 158-BC of the Income Tax Act. The assessee has challenged that the Assessing Officer has no jurisdiction to issue notice under Section 158BC as there was no search or requisition made by the revenue. The assessees filed affidavits duly sworn by them to this effect. Under similar circumstances in the connected matters this Tribunal cancelled the assessment. The relevant order of this Tribunal in the connected matters dated 8.10.1997 in ITA Nos.1925, 1926 ...../Mds/96 in the case of Urmila Chandak and Others was produced. A copy of that order is placed on record. Besides that the learned counsel for the assessees also produced a copy of the order of this Tribunal dated 2.7.1998 in R.A. Nos. 804 to 835/Mds/97 arising out of the order of this Tribunal dated 8.10.1997 in the aforesaid cases. The facts show that there was no search or requisition issued in the case of these assessees. The search under section 132 took place only in the case of Shri Bhojraj Chandak and Shri Madanmohan Chandak. In the order of this Tribunal dated 8.10.1997 in the aforesaid cases (Urmila Chandak & Otrs.) the Tribunal observed at pages 11 and 14 that -- Page - 11 "When that is the case, we fail to understand how these appellant-assessees can be brought into the net of Chapter XIV-B of the Act. Therefore, the Assessing Officer did not derive any jurisdiction, authority or power to issue notice to any appellant herein as provided in Sec.158BC of the Act. From these facts, it is very clear that the notice under Section 158BC has been issued contrary to the legal requirements and therefore as contended by Shri Kumbhat, the Assessing Officer had no jurisdiction to issue any notice and consequently the impugned assessments made pursuant to such illegal notices cannot stand in the eye of law and have to be annulled." Page-14 : Further the Hon'ble Madras High Court again reiterated the same principle in the case of Mariam Aysha Vs. Commissioner of Agricultural Income-Tax (104 ITR 381) at page 384 that consent cannot give jurisdiction is an essential principle of law and the taxing authority can act only if there is a power under the statute to do so. Their Lordships of the Gujarat High Court in the well reasoned and elaborate judgment rendered in the case of P.V. Doshi Vs. CIT (113 ITR 22) have laid down after discussing the ratio and principle enunciated by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in several cases that jurisdiction can neither be waived nor conferred by consent or acquiescence. From these authorities, we have no hesitation or doubt in out mind to hold that the Assessing Officer did not possess valid jurisdiction to issue notices to various appellant assessees herein in terms of Section 158BC of the Act nor he had any power, authority or jurisdiction to make or pass any orders of assessment in respect of the block period as are questioned by the appellants in these appeals. The impugned assessment orders of the block period made on 29.8.1996 are, therefore, clearly without jurisdiction and are liable to be quashed and we hereby quash the same." 4. The matter was pursued by the Department before this Court in TCA Nos.240 and 241/2000 in respect of two of the assessees. The specific case of the Department in the earlier round of litigation before this Court was that in the case of one assessee, there was, in fact, search of the premises of the assessee and the block assessment was made in the case of the other assessee invoking the provisions of Section 158BD, which is on the basis of the materials gathered at the time of the search. However, this Court was of the view that the Tribunal did not apply its mind to the facts of the case and that the facts necessary in respect of the two assessees were not examined and, therefore, this Court held that it was not appropriate to decide the issue one way or the other. The order of this Court, for better clarity, is extracted hereinbelow :- "2. The order on which the Tribunal placed reliance contains a specific finding that there was no search in the premises of those assessees. The order of this Court, for better clarity, is extracted hereinbelow :- "2. The order on which the Tribunal placed reliance contains a specific finding that there was no search in the premises of those assessees. The submission made before us by the learned counsel for the Revenue is that in the case of one of these assessees there was in fact search in the premises of the assessee and that the block assessment made in the case of other assessees also does not require or warrant any interference as these assessments had been made on the basis of the materials gathered at the time of search. Other contentions were also sought to be placed before us by the Revenue which we find it unnecessary to consider, having regard to the order that we now propose to make. 3. The Tribunal has not applied its mind to the facts of the case of the two assessees before us. Unless all the facts are placed before us and examined by us, it would be hazardous to hold that the Tribunal is either right or wrong in the conclusion that it has reached. We, therefore, set aside the order of the Tribunal and remand the matter back to the Tribunal leaving all contentions of the parties open. It will be open to the Revenue as also to the assessees to place their respective cases before the Tribunal and also invite its attention to such documents they think are supportive of their respective cases. 4. The appeals are allowed and the matter is remitted back to the Tribunal." Accordingly, this Court remanded the matter back to the Tribunal for fresh consideration leaving all the contentions of the parties open. 5. On remand, the Tribunal passed a fresh order on 28.2.06. The objection raised by the present appellant, before the Tribunal on remand, for better clarity and appreciation of the case, is extracted herein below :- "6. At the threshold, the assessee has taken amiss to the jurisdictional aspect of the impugned block assessment order. Following has been urged :- "The learned Assessing Officer erred in law in assuming jurisdiction u/s 158BC of the Income Tax Act, 1961 inasmuch as no authorisation u/s 132 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, was issued in the name of the assessee. Following has been urged :- "The learned Assessing Officer erred in law in assuming jurisdiction u/s 158BC of the Income Tax Act, 1961 inasmuch as no authorisation u/s 132 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, was issued in the name of the assessee. The assessment framed consequent to the issue of the said notice is contrary to law and is, therefore, unsustainable." 6. On the question of jurisdiction raised by the assessee, the Tribunal placed reliance on the decision in Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Indore Constructions P. Ltd. (279 ITR 545), wherein the Madhya Pradesh High Court held as under :- "Where a search warrant is issued in the name of the director and undisclosed income of the company is discovered, the Assessing Officer has jurisdiction to proceed under section 158BC. In such a case, no separate authorization as contemplated under section 132 for this assessee, i.e., the company, is required. The very object of section 158BD is to give jurisdiction to the Assessing Officer to proceed against any person (assessee) other than the person against whom a search warrant is issued under section 132 or section 132A provided any undisclosed income belonging to such person is recovered in the search operation." 7. The Tribunal, thereafter, went on to decide the issue and dismissed the appeal on jurisdiction and remanded the matter to the assessing officer for the purpose of re-determining the assessment, against which the present appeal has been filed by the assessee, primarily on the questions of law, which have been extracted supra. 8. However, learned counsel appearing on either side conceded that the core issue, that arises for consideration in this appeal is the 2nd substantial question of law and if the same is answered, the other questions of law become academic. Accordingly, this Court proposes to deal with the 2nd substantial question of law. 9. The contention of Dr. Anitha Sumanth, learned counsel appearing for the appellant is that the jurisdictional issue, as relied on by the Tribunal, based on the decision of the Madhya Pradesh High Court, has been reversed by the Supreme Court and, therefore, the order of the Tribunal is liable to be set aside. 10. 9. The contention of Dr. Anitha Sumanth, learned counsel appearing for the appellant is that the jurisdictional issue, as relied on by the Tribunal, based on the decision of the Madhya Pradesh High Court, has been reversed by the Supreme Court and, therefore, the order of the Tribunal is liable to be set aside. 10. Before proceeding to decide the issue as raised by the appellant/assessee, it would be relevant to have a cursory look at the provisions of Section 158BD of the Act, which has been deliberated by the Madhya Pradesh High Court on which reliance has been placed by the Tribunal to arrive at a finding. 11. The core issue decided by the Madhya Pradesh High Court in the case of Indore Constructions (supra) is whether Section 158BD of the Act gives jurisdiction to the assessing officer to proceed against any person other than the person against whom the search warrant is issued under Section 132 or Section 132A of the Act, provided any undisclosed income, belonging to such person is recovered in the said operation. 12. For better appreciation of the case on hand, Section 158BD, on which thrust is given by the Department to proceed against the appellant/assessee, is quoted hereunder :- "Undisclosed income of any other person. 158BD. 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 158BC] against such other person and the provisions of this Chapter shall apply accordingly." 13. However, it is brought to the notice of this Court by the learned counsel for the appellant/assessee that the above decision of the Madhya Pradesh High Court has been reversed by the Supreme Court in Indore Construction P. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax (2007 (289) ITR 341 (SC)), wherein the Supreme Court has held that the condition precedent for invoking the provisions of Section 158BD are to be satisfied before the provisions of the chapter are followed. The relevant portion of the order of the Supreme Court is extracted hereunder :- "11. Commissioner of Income Tax (2007 (289) ITR 341 (SC)), wherein the Supreme Court has held that the condition precedent for invoking the provisions of Section 158BD are to be satisfied before the provisions of the chapter are followed. The relevant portion of the order of the Supreme Court is extracted hereunder :- "11. The condition precedent for invoking a block assessment is that a search has been conducted under section 132, or documents or assets have been requisitioned under section 132A. The said provision would apply in the case of any person in respect of whom search has been carried out under section 132A or documents or assets have been requisitioned under section 132A. Section 158BD, however, provides for taking recourse to a block assessment in terms of section 158BC in respect of any other person, the conditions precedent wherefor are : (i) satisfaction must be recorded by the Assessing Officer that any undisclosed income belongs to any person, other than the person with respect to whom search was made under section 132 of the Act; (ii) the books of account or other documents or assets seized or requisitioned had been handed over to the Assessing Officer having jurisdiction over such other person; and (iii) the Assessing Officer has proceeded under section 158BC against such other person. 12. The conditions precedent for invoking the provisions of section 158BD, thus, are required to be satisfied before the provisions of the said Chapter are applied in relation to any person other than the person whose premises had been searched or whose documents and other assets had been requisitioned under section 132A of the Act." 14. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellant and the learned standing counsel appearing for the respondent and perused the materials available on record as also the decisions relied on by the learned counsel on either side. Keeping the above ratio of the Supreme Court in mind, this Court proceeds to analyse the case on hand. 15. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellant and the learned standing counsel appearing for the respondent and perused the materials available on record as also the decisions relied on by the learned counsel on either side. Keeping the above ratio of the Supreme Court in mind, this Court proceeds to analyse the case on hand. 15. In the present case, even at the threshold it is to be stated without any contradiction that the issue, as fell before the Madhya Pradesh High Court, which has been reversed by the Supreme Court, does not arise for consideration, as we find that there is some confusion in the facts that was urged by the parties in the course of assessment, the appeal before the Tribunal as also before this Court in the earlier round of litigation, which has given rise to this present round of litigation. 16. In order to verify the correctness as to whether there was a search conducted in the premises of the assessee consequent upon the search notice under Section 132 of the Act, this Court called for the records of this Court in the earlier round of litigation in TCA Nos.240 and 241/2000. In the said documents, the objection raised by the learned counsel for the appellant that there was no search conducted by the respondent in the premises of the assessee, be it business premises or residence premises, is found to be justified from a reading of the record of proceedings dated 31.8.95 in relation to Nav Bharat Corporation at No.28, Godown Street. It was a case of survey under Section 133A of the Act and on that basis alone the entire proceedings has happened. For better clarity, the relevant portion of the proceedings, which shows that only survey was conducted in the premises of Nav Bharat Corporation, is extracted herein below - "Inventory of stocks taken at the business premises of M/s. Nav Bharat Corporation, 28, Godown St., Madras - 1, during the course of search/survey u/s 133A on 31/08/95." 17. The above document, which is undisputed and forms part of the Court records, makes it clear that the confusion has apparently happened because search under Section 132 of the Act commenced in the case of other assessees as well and, therefore, all similarly placed persons were clubbed together and assessment orders were passed. The above document, which is undisputed and forms part of the Court records, makes it clear that the confusion has apparently happened because search under Section 132 of the Act commenced in the case of other assessees as well and, therefore, all similarly placed persons were clubbed together and assessment orders were passed. However, neither in the course of passing the assessment order nor during the appeal proceedings before the Tribunal or this Court, attention was drawn to the survey proceedings under Section 133A of the Act, insofar as the present assessee is concerned. Since all the cases were taken up together as one lot and assessment orders were passed, the error could have happened. Since the earlier order of the Tribunal dated 12.4.99 does not deal with each one of the assessee, but based on a common order passed by the Tribunal, the error in the present case is apparent on the face of the record. This error was also not brought to the notice of this Court in the earlier round of litigation. The typed set of documents filed in the earlier round of litigation by the assessee in TCA Nos.240 and 241/2000 shows that it is a case of only survey u/s 133A and search has been clearly deleted. There is no dispute on this fact, as the same is borne out by document. If it is a case of survey under Section 133A of the Act, as is evident from the document, the block assessment, invoking the provisions of Sections 158BC does not arise, as there is no search in terms of Section 132 of the Act. In view of the above, the 2nd substantial question of law, on the question of jurisdiction, is answered in favour of the appellant/assessee and against the respondent/Revenue. 18. In view of the above answer to the 2nd substantial question of law, the other questions of law, as framed, become academic and, therefore, they are not being dealt with. 19. In the result, this appeal is allowed and the order passed by the Tribunal dated 28.02.06 is set aside. However, in the circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs.