Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

and not "other person". Hence it was submitted that the impugned notice issued under section 153C of the Act is bad in law. It was further argued that the respondent No. 1 failed to examine whether the papers or loose note sheets found during the course of search in the premises of Sri Rajendran are documents having evidentiary value to prove the fact of transaction. In this regard, he referred to Section 34 of Indian Evidence Act, 1872 to contend that the search action did not lead to discovery of unaccounted money, bullion, jewellery or valuable article and no books of account revealed undisclosed transactions of the assessee and the entire impugned proceedings revolved around scribbling of loose sheets seized from premises of another person (Sri Rajendran) and therefore, learned Senior Counsel argued that the action taken by respondent No. 1 is contrary to the law declared by the Apex Court in the case of V.C. Shukla (supra) and in the case of Common Cause (supra) and accordingly, sought for quashing of impugned notices.