DCIT Vs Sri C. R. Ram Mohan Raju (Karnataka High Court)
Summary: The Karnataka High Court considered a Revenue appeal against the order dated 27.10.2025 of the learned Single Judge in W.P.No.33057 of 2024. The dispute concerned the proper statutory route for proceedings against Sri C. R. Ram Mohan Raju after a search under Section 132 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 was conducted at his residential premises. The search, however, was authorised in the case of Sri K. Narayan Raju, whose books of account, documents and valuable articles were suspected to be kept at the respondent’s premises. Following the search, the Assessing Officer of Sri K. Narayan Raju recorded satisfaction that seized material belonged to the respondent and handed it over to his Assessing Officer, who issued notices under Section 153C for AYs 2011–12 to 2018–19.
The learned Single Judge treated the respondent as a “searched person”, principally because his premises had been searched and documents had been seized therefrom, and consequently quashed the Section 153C notices. Before the Division Bench, the Revenue contended that the search was person-specific, not premise-specific: the satisfaction under Section 132 had been recorded against Sri K. Narayan Raju and the warrant of authorisation identified him, while the respondent’s residence merely supplied the place where the suspected material was located. The Revenue relied upon PCIT v. Associated Mining Company, MDLR Resorts Pvt. Ltd. v. CIT and Pooran Mal v. Director of Inspection, besides the judgments concerning the distinction between the searched person and the place searched.
