JUDGMENT judgment of court was delivered by Dr. Satish Chandra J.-The present appeal is filed by Department against impugned order dated October 5, 2010, passed by Incometax Appellate Tribunal, Allahabad, in I. T. A. No. 05/Alld/09 for block period April 1, 1988, to May 3, 1998. assessee has also filed writ petition praying for refund of seized cash. brief facts of case are that on May 2, 1998, three persons, namely, Shri Mahesh Kumar Khandelwal, Shri Vijay Kumar Soni and Shri Phool Raj Singh were going on rickshaw to board Prayagraj Express Train for going to Delhi. They were detained by police and total sum of Rs. 17,00,000 was recovered from their possession. On interrogation, all three persons stated that money belongs to assessee, i.e., Anil Kumar Chaddha alias Guddu, who in reply to query by police stated that cash belongs to firm, M/s. Chaddha and others. Finally, matter was referred to Income-tax Department, who has issued notice under section 158BC of Act in name of assessee and made addition being undisclosed income along with income of Rs. 1,11,700 disclosed by assessee in his return. Finally, undisclosed income of Rs. 18,11,700 was taxed in hands of assessee. Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) has confirmed same but Tribunal has deleted addition by observing that no search warrant was issued under section 132 of Act in name of assessee. So, no notice can be issued in name of assessee under section 158BC of Act. Being aggrieved, Department has filed present appeal. With this background Shri Bharat Ji Agrawal, learned senior counsel for Department, submits that all three persons were carrying cash, specifically told that money belongs to assessee. Tribunal has wrongly held that if undisclosed income was to be assessed in hands of assessee, it could have been done under section 158BD and not under section 158BC before framing assessment. It is mandatory to issue notice under section 158BD and also to record satisfaction by Assessing Officer having jurisdiction over persons search and nothing has been brought on record that any notice under section 158BD was issued to assessee. Learned senior counsel also submits that this finding is wrong for reason that no notice under section 158BD is provided under Act, assuming that section 158BD is applicable, still notice has to be issued under section 158BC. provisions of section 158BC and section 158BD are machinery provisions which provides procedure for block assessment. Hence, assessment of undisclosed income cannot be set aside only on ground that notice under section 158BD should have been issued even though section 158BD contemplates issuance of notice only under section 158BC. Learned senior counsel further submits that no objection was raised either before Assessing Officer or Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), hence this objection cannot be taken for first time before Tribunal. It is also submission of learned senior counsel that section 158BC provides for procedure for block assessment of undisclosed income. On perusal of said section it is clear that "any" search having been conducted under section 132 or books of account, assets, etc., having been requisitioned under section 132A of Act Assessing Officer, after having issued notices to persons, may proceed to assess undisclosed income of such persons. Therefore, order of requisition under section 132A and issuance of notice under section 158BC to relevant person are essential for proceeding to assess undisclosed income. He elaborated his submission by mentioning that section 132A falling under Chapter XIII of Income-tax Act which enunciates powers of income-tax authorities, nowhere provides that search or requisition be done by particular officer who has jurisdiction over particular person. On conjoint reading of section 132A, section 158BC and section 158BD, only condition precedent for Assessing Officer to initiate proceeding of assessment of undisclosed income of any person is that proper search or requisition must have been done as per Chapter XIII and satisfaction must have been recorded by Assessing Officer based on such search or requisitioned documents, assets, etc., irrespective of person search or requisitioned documents, assets, etc., irrespective of person against whom search was conducted or documents, assets requisitioned. To support his argument, he relied upon ratio laid down in following cases: (a) Manish Maheshwari v. Asst. CIT [2007] 289 ITR 341 (SC); (b) CIT v. Mridula, Prop. Dhruv Fabrics [2011] 335 ITR 266 (P&H); (c) CIT v. Calcutta Knitwears [2014] 362 ITR 673 (SC); (d) Khandubhai Vasanji Desai v. Deputy CIT [1999] 236 ITR 73 (Guj) ; and (e) CIT v. Aboo Mohmed [2001] 250 ITR 313 (Karn). Lastly, he made request that impugned order passed by Tribunal may kindly be set aside and order of Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) may kindly be restored. On other hand, Shri Rishi Raj Kapoor, learned counsel for assessee, has supported order passed by Tribunal. He submits that as per language and provisions of section 158BC of Income-tax Act where any search has been conducted under section 132 or books of account, other documents or assets are requisitioned under section 132A, in case of any person, then, (a) Assessing Officer shall, (ii) in respect of search initiated or books of account or other documents or any assets requisitioned on or after 1st day of January 1997, serve notice to such person requiring him to furnish within such time not being less than fifteen days but not more than forty-five days, as may be specified in notice return in prescribed form and verified in same manner as return under clause (i) of sub section (1) of section 142, setting forth his total income including undisclosed income for block period. He further submits that as per section 132A(1)(c) and section 132A(3) of Income-tax Act assets which are requisitioned by authorised officer of Income-tax Department, such assets will be treated as assets seized under section 132(1) of Income-tax Act by requisitioning officer from custody of person referred to in clause (a), (b) or (c) of sub-section (1) of section 132A of Act. Hence, for initiation or proceeding under section 158BC of Income-tax Act, seizure or survey or requisition must be in name of assessee, against whom proceeding has been initiated. submission of learned counsel is that, in instant case, search, seizure or requisition of money was not in name of assessee and in this regard finding is recorded by Tribunal in paragraph 7 and onwards in which Tribunal has recorded finding of fact that assessee was not searched and there was no search warrant and requisition was not made in name of assessee, and in paragraph 7.1 of impugned order, it is specifically held that: "In instant case, no search was conducted in hands of assessee and even there was no requisition in case of assessee. Therefore, provisions of section 158BC were not applicable." That Revenue has not challenged this finding, hence Tribunal being last fact finding authority, order of Tribunal is legally right and valid and there is no question of law arises from order of Tribunal. Hence, in view of settled legal position, proceedings under section 158BC of Income-tax Act is illegal and invalid and Tribunal has rightly held that provisions of section 158BC are not applicable in case of present assessee and due to this reason no question of law arise from order of Tribunal, hence appeal filed by Department should be dismissed. To support his arguments he relied upon ratio laid down in following cases: (a) CIT v. Ms. Pushpa Rani [2007] 289 ITR 328 (Delhi); (b) Jayantilal Damjibhai Soni v. Director of Investigation [2008] 219 CTR 26 (Guj); (c) Raghu Raj Pratap Singh v. Asst. CIT [2008] 307 ITR 450 (All); and (d) New Delhi Auto Finance P. Ltd. v. Joint CIT [2008] 300 ITR 83 (Delhi). We heard both parties at length and gone through materials available on record. From record, it appears that police recovered sum of Rs. 17,00,000 from possession of three persons namely:- Shri Mahesh Kumar Khandelwal Rs. 5,45,000; Shri Vijay Kumar Soni Rs. 6,00,000; and Shri Phool Raj Singh Rs. 5,55,000 Total Rs. 17,00,000 It is evident that there was no search warrant in name of assessee nor assets were requisitioned from assessee. Therefore, provisions of section 158BC is not applicable in instant case. Section 158BC reads as under: "Where any search has been conducted under section 132 or books of account, other documents or assets are requisitioned under section 132A, in case of any person, then...." Further, no warrant or requisition was issued either in name of firm or assessee. In instant case, at best seized amount might have been added in hands of assessee under section 158BD. opportunity was provided by this hon'ble court to Department to produce original records but Department expressed its inability to produce records as stated by learned senior counsel of Department. It may be mentioned that section 158BC and section 158BD are not identical, both have different purposes. hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Manish Maheshwari v. Asst. CIT [2007] 289 ITR 341 (SC) observed that before provisions of section 158BD of Income-tax Act, 1961, are invoked against person other than person whose premises have been searched under section 132 or documents and other assets have been requisitioned under section 132A, conditions precedent have to be satisfied. In instant case Rs. 17,00,000 were requisitioned from S. H. O. Kotwali, Allahabad, under section 132A of Act, which was seized from three persons. Therefore, provisions of section 158BD is applicable in instant case but same was not applied by Department. assessment was framed after issuing notice under section 158BC which is not applicable in instant case, since assessee was neither searched nor assets were requisitioned from him under section 132A of Act. Further, there were no warrant of authorisation in name of assessee. In view of above discussion and by considering totality of facts and circumstances of case, it appears that no substantial question of law is emerging from impugned order. When it is so, then we find no reason to interfere with impugned order passed by Tribunal, same is hereby sustained along with reasons mentioned therein. In result, appeal filed by Department is dismissed. In writ petition, assessee has made request for issue writ order or direction in nature of mandamus commanding respondents to refund forthwith cash of Rs. 17,00,000 seized on May 2, 1998, along with interest. After considering rival submissions, it is evident that addition in hands of assessee has been deleted by Tribunal as well as by this hon'ble court. petitioner's application for refund is pending consideration before authority concerned. We, accordingly, direct authority to decide application within period of four months from date of production of certified copy of this order, writ petition filed by assessee is, accordingly, disposed of. *** Commissioner of Income-tax v. Anil Kumar Chadha