DCIT Vs Sri C. R. Ram Mohan Raju (Karnataka High Court)
Summary: The Karnataka High Court, in Writ Appeal No. 382 of 2026 pronounced on 24 April 2026, allowed the Revenue’s appeal and set aside the order of the learned Single Judge which had quashed notices issued under Section 153C of the Income-tax Act, 1961 for Assessment Years 2011–12 to 2018–19. The central issue was whether Sri C. R. Ram Mohan Raju, whose residential premises were searched, was himself a “searched person” liable to proceedings under Section 153A, or an “other person” against whom proceedings could validly be initiated under Section 153C.
The search under Section 132 was conducted on 14 September 2017 pursuant to satisfaction recorded in relation to Sri K. Narayan Raju. Although the residential premises of Sri C. R. Ram Mohan Raju were searched, the satisfaction under Section 132(1)(a) to (c) and the warrant of authorisation in Form No. 45 identified Sri K. Narayan Raju as the person against whom the search was authorised. The Revenue therefore contended that the search was person-specific, with the premises merely being the place where material relating to the searched person was suspected to be kept.
The Court examined Sections 132, 153A and 153C of the Act along with Rule 112 of the Income-tax Rules. It held that Section 132 draws a distinction between the person in respect of whom the competent authority records the requisite “reason to believe” under clauses (a) to (c), and the building, place or premises in respect of which “reason to suspect” is formed under clauses (i) to (v). Consequently, a search under Section 132 is person-centric and not premise-centric. The premises searched need not belong to the person against whom the satisfaction is recorded; they may belong to another person.
