Akil Kureshi, J.:— These petitions arise out of common factual background. They are therefore, heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment.

2. We may notice the facts as arising in Special Civil Appln. No. 13643 of 2012. The petitioner is an individual and is assessed to tax under the IT Act, 1961 (‘Act’ for short). The petitioner has challenged the order dt. 2nd Feb., 2012 passed by the CIT, Ahmedabad under s. 127(2) of the Act by which he clubbed and consolidated the assessment proceedings of the petitioner and other family members with Asstt. CIT, Central Circle-2(1), Ahmedabad. The petitioner has also challenged the notice dt. 25th Sept., 2012 issued under s. 153C of the Act.

3. The petitioner and other family members sold three parcels of land situated in the City of Ahmedabad to a Sanghvi Group operating in the name of Sanghvi Infracon (P) Ltd., who were engaged in the construction business. Search and seizure operations were carried out on the business premises of the said Sanghvi Infracon (P) Ltd. and other related persons on 9th March, 2011. On the premise that certain documents belonging to the petitioner and other family members were found from the business premises of the said searched person, summons under s. 131(1A) of the Act was issued against the petitioner on 24th June, 2011. A notice under s. 153C of the Act came to be issued by the Asstt. CIT, Central Circle, 2(4) Ahmedabad, against the petitioner and others on 25th Sept., 2012, in which it was stated as under:

“A search under s. 132 of the IT Act was conducted in group cases of Sanghvi Group (Shri Dhirajlal Vaghjibhai Sanghvi & Ors.), on 9th March, 2011. The income-tax of six assessment years immediately preceding the from asst. yrs. 2005-06 to 2010-11 is required to be assessed/reassessed in your 153C r/w s. 153(A) of the IT Act, 1961 for asst. yr. 2005-06 being one out of the above six assessment years in respect of which you are assessable under the IT Act, 1961. The return should be filed in the appropriate form as prescribed in r. 12 of the IT Rules, 1962. It should be duly verified and signed in accordance with the provisions of s. 140 of the said Act and delivered at any office as mentioned above within fifteen days from the service of the notice.”

4. The respondents along with the reply have produced reasons for issuance of notice under s. 153C of the Act, which were recorded on 24th Sept., 2011 by the Asstt. CIT, which reads as under:

“A search under s. 132 of the IT Act was conducted in Group cases of Sanghvi Group (Shri Dhirajlal Vaghjibhai Sanghvi), on 9th March, 2011. Search was also carried out at residential premises of Shir Dhirajlal Vaghjibhai Sanghvi at A-14, Tirthbhumi Appartments, Opp. Law Garden, Ellisbridge, Ahmedabad. During the course of search one loose paper file consisting of 102 pages was found which was seized and inventorized as per Annex. A-1. The documents seized are as under:

(a) Pages 65 to 92 are sale deed of land (Survey No. 3) of Nava Vadaj, Ahmedabad which was sold by Shri Kamlesh Dharmsibhai Patel & Ors.

(b) Pages 46 to 64 are sale deed of land (Survey No. 13) of Nava Vadaj, Ahmedabad which was sold by Shri Sanjay D. Patel & Kamlesh D. Patel. Both the documents are duly signed by Shir Kamlesh Dharamsibhai Patel.

(c) Further, agreement relating to return of possession

(i) between Bansilal Babubhai Chaudhary and Shri Kamlesh Dharmsibhai Patel/Sanjay Dharmasibhai Patel was also seized at pp. 40 to 45.

(ii) between Lilaben Bhadriprasad Bhulji and Shri Kamlesh Dharamsibhai Patel/Sanjay Dharamsibhai Patel was also seized at pp. 36 to 39.

(iii) between Bhimjibhai Amarsinh Chauhan and Shri Kamlesh Dharmsibhai Patel/Sanjay Dhyarmsibhai Patel was also sized at pp. 32 to 35.

All the above documents are duly signed by Shir Kamlesh Dharamsibhai Patel. Thus, documents belonging to Shri Kamlesh Dharmsibhai Patel were seized from the residential premises of Shir Dhirajlal Vaghjibhai Sanghvi.

In view of above facts, I am satisfied that all the pre-requisite conditions of s. 153C of the Act are fulfilled and therefore, it is a fit case for issuing of notice under s. 153C r/w. s. 153A of the Act. Therefore, notice under s. 153C of the Act is issued to the assessee.”

5. As noted, the petitioners filed these petitions, challenging the order passed by the CIT under s. 127(2) of the Act as also the notices issued under s. 153C of the Act on various grounds. However, while making oral submissions before us learned counsel gave up challenge to the impugned order dt. 2nd Feb., 2012 passed under s. 127(2) of the Act but maintained the challenge of the petitioners to the notices issued under s. 153C of the Act.

6. Before recording and dealing with the rival contentions, we may recall that as per the reasons recorded by the Asstt. CIT for initiating action under s. 153C of the Act against the petitioners, he had relied upon certain documents found from the possession of Sanghvi Infracon (P) Ltd. during the search operation at their business premises. Such documents were (1) sale deeds of the land in question and (2) agreement entered into by and between the tenant of the said property and petitioners on various dates. In some cases, the authority has relied on receipts of payments along with the sale deeds; whereas in other cases, reliance is placed only on sale deeds. We shall therefore judge the validity of the notices on the basis of all such grounds.

7. Learned counsel Shri R.K Patel appearing for the petitioners vehemently contended that none of the documents found from the persons searched could be stated to belong to the petitioners. He submitted that under s. 153C of the Act action can be taken only if any money, bullion, jewellery or other valuable articles or things or books of accounts or documents seized or requisitioned belong to a person other than the person searched. He submitted that when the lands in question were already sold in favour of Sanghvi Infracon (P) Ltd. under the sale dt. 18th Sept., 2010, these documents in question cannot be stated to belong to the petitioners. As per his contention, once the title in the land vested in the purchases, none of the documents could be stated to belong to the petitioners.

8. Heavy reliance was placed on the decision of Division Bench of this Court in case of Vijaybhai N. Chandrani v. Asstt. CIT, (2010) 231 CTR (Guj) 474 : (2010) 38 DTR (Guj) 225 : (2011) 333 ITR 436 (Guj), wherein the Court had an occasion to interpret the term ‘belongs to’ used in s. 153C of the Act. We will refer to the said decision at a later stage.

9. For our perusal, counsel produced on record photo copies of some of the documents which were entered into between the petitioners and the tenants.

10. On the other hand, learned counsel Shri Manish Bhatt appearing for the Revenue submitted that the satisfaction note recorded by the authority leaves no room for doubt. Documents belonging to the petitioners were seized during the search and seizure operation carried out at the business premises of Sanghvi Infracon (P) Ltd. He submitted that simply because property was later on transferred by the owners would not change the nature of ownership of the documents in question.

11. Counsel relied upon decision of Division Bench of Delhi High Court in case of Ssp Aviation Ltd…. v. Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, (2012) 252 CTR (Del) 291 : (2012) 70 DTR (Del) 275 : (2012) 346 ITR 177 (Del), wherein in the context of s. 153C of the Act the Court observed as under:

“14. Now, there can be a situation when during the search conducted on one person under s. 132, some documents or valuable assets or books of account belonging to some other person, in whose case the search is not conducted, may be found. In such case, the AO has to first be satisfied under s. 153C, which provides for the assessment of income of any other person, i.e, any other person who is not covered by the search, that the books of account or other valuable article or documents belongs to the other person (person other than the one searched). He shall hand over the valuable article or books of account or document to the AO having jurisdiction over the other person. Thereafter, the AO having jurisdiction over the other person has to proceed against him and issue notice to that person in order to assess or reassess the income of such other person in the manner contemplated by the provisions of s. 153A.

15. It needs to be appreciated that the satisfaction that is required to be reached by the AO having jurisdiction over the searched person is that the valuable articles or books of account or documents seized during the search belong to a person other than the searched person. There is no requirement in s. 153C(1) that the AO should also be satisfied that such valuable articles or books of account or documents belonging to the other person must be shown to show to conclusively reflect or disclose any undisclosed income.”

12. Learned counsel Ms. Paurami Sheth also appeared for the Revenue and submitted that since the petitioners had given up their challenge to the order passed under s. 127(2) of the Act, she has no further submissions to make.

13. Having thus heard learned counsel for the parties and upon perusal of the documents on record, a pointed question that arises for our consideration is whether the action of the respondents under s. 153C of the Act can be stated to be invalid in the facts of the case. To recapitulate the facts—the petitioners held certain parcels of land in the city of Ahmedabad. Such lands were sold to Sanghvi Infracon (P) Ltd. by executing sale deeds dt. 18th Sept., 2010. Subsequently, Sanghvi Group was subjected to search and seizure operations during which time, certain documents were seized. It is the case of the Revenue that huge cash amounts were paid for purchase of the land which were received by the petitioners. We are not concerned with these allegations at this stage. What is relevant for us is to determine whether the sale-documents executed in favour of the petitioners and the agreements executed by the tenants of the lands in favour of the petitioners and other documents relied upon by Revenue are the documents belonging to the petitioners and that therefore, action under s. 153C of the Act is valid.

14. Sec. 153C of the Act pertains to assessment of income of any person other than the person searched and relevant portion thereof reads as under:

“153C: Assessment of income of any other person.— Notwithstanding anything contained in s. 139, s. 147, s. 148, s. 149, s. 151 and s. 153 where the AO is satisfied that any money, bullion, jewellery or other valuable article or thing or books of account or documents seized or requisitioned belongs or belong to a person other than the person referred to in s. 153A, then the books of account or documents or assets seized or requisitioned shall be handed over to the AO having jurisdiction over such other person and that AO shall proceed against each such other person and issue such other person notice and assess or reassess income of such other person in accordance with the provisions of s. 153A:

Provided that in case of such other person, the reference to the date of initiation of the search under s. 132 or making of requisition under s. 132A in the second proviso to sub-s. (1) of s. 153A shall be construed as reference to the date of receiving the books of account or documents or assets seized or requisitioned by the AO having jurisdiction over such other person.”

15. From the above, it can be seen that sub-s. (1) of s. 153C of the Act starts with non-obstante clause and provides that, notwithstanding anything contained in ss. 139, 147, 148, 149, 151 or s. 153 of the Act, if the requirements of the said sub-section are satisfied, the AO having jurisdiction over the person other than the person searched shall proceed against such other person and issue notice and assess or reassess income of such a person in accordance with the provisions contained in s. 153A of the Act. Requirements for assuming jurisdiction under sub-s. (1) of s. 153C therefore are that the AO is satisfied that any money, bullion, jewellery or other valuable article or thing or books of account or documents seized or requisitioned belongs or belong to a person other than the person referred to in s. 153A of the Act. In such a case, he shall hand over to the AO having jurisdiction over such other person, the books of account or documents or documents or assets seized or requisitioned. Importantly therefore, to initiate any action under s. 153C of the Act, it is essential that any money, bullion, jewellery or other valuable article or thing or books of account or documents seized or requisitioned should belong to a person other than the person referred to in s. 153A of the Act.

16. It was in this background that the Division Bench of this Court in case of Vijaybhai N. Chandrani v. Asstt. CIT (supra) quashed the action of the Revenue authorities when it was found that copies of loose sheets of papers which were found during the search cannot be stated to belong to the person other than the searched person. It was the case wherein. on the basis of such documents seized during search operations on a builder, action under s. 153C of the Act was initiated against the purchasers of the properties constructed by the searched person. It was on this point that the Court held and observed as under:

“13. Thus a condition precedent for issuing notice under s. 153C and assessing or reassessing income of such other person, is that the money, bullion, jewellery or other valuable article or thing or books of account or documents seized or requisitioned should belong to such person. If the said requirement is not satisfied, recourse cannot be had to the provisions of s. 153C of the Act.

14. Examining the facts of the present case in the light of the aforesaid statutory scheme, it is an admitted position as emerging from the record of the case, that the documents in question, namely the three loose papers recovered during the search proceedings do not belong to the petitioner. It may be that there is a reference to the petitioner in as much as his name is reflected in the list under the heading Samutkarsh Members Details and certain details are given under different columns against the name of the petitioner along with other members, however, it is nobody's case that the said documents belong to the petitioner. It is not even the case of the Revenue that the said three documents are in the handwriting of the petitioner. In the circumstances, when the condition precedent for issuance of notice is not fulfilled any action taken under s. 153C of the Act stands vitiated.”

17. Facts being vitally different, the ratio laid down in the said decision would not apply in the present case. In the present case, the set of documents relied upon by the Revenue pertain to sale deeds executed by the petitioners in favour of the purchasers viz., M/is Sanghvi Infracon (P) Ltd. and agreements entered into between the erstwhile tenants of the said lands and the petitioners. As noted earlier, in some cases reliance is placed on the sale deeds alone and in some additionally on the receipts of payments. In the present case, we find that the documents viz., agreements between the tenants of the petitioners would certainly satisfy the requirement of s. 153C of the Act. We may, to support such conclusions, have a slightly closure look at such documents. These documents are worded similarly. We may, therefore, record narration found in one such document executed on 23rd Aug., 2010 between Bansibhai Babubhai Chaudhary—the party of the first part and Kamleshbhai Dharamshibhai Patel and Sanjaykumar Dharamshibhai Patel—petitioners herein (as party of the second part). In such document, it is stated that the parties of the second part had purchased land on 3rd Dec., 2007 by a registered sale deed. The party of the first part occupied three rooms constructed on such land as a tenant. The party of the second part required the land with vacant possession. The party of the first part did not require tenanted property any longer. The party of the second part therefore paid a total consideration of Rs. 24,00,000 calculating Rs. 8,00,000 per room to the party of the first part, upon which he had handed over vacant and peaceful possession of the said tenanted property to the party of the second part. In para 5 of the said agreement, it was specifically provided that the party of the first part had not entered into any other transaction with respect to the tenanted properties. In para 6 thereof, it was stated that the parly of the first part would present himself for executing any document in favour of the party of the second part before any authorities; whenever required.

18. From the above, it emerges that the portion of land in question were occupied by tenants. In order to not only give a clear marketable title to the purchaser but also give the vacant possession of the entire land, the petitioners before executing the sale deeds entered into agreements with the tenants under which, the tenants vacated the premises and handed over possession to the petitioners in consideration of sizeable amount paid to them. This was done through several agreements executed between the tenants and the petitioners. Later on, the lands were sold to M/s. Sanghvi Infracon (P) Ltd. by a registered sale deed dt. 16th Sept., 2010.

19. Whatever be the position of title of the lands post 16th Sept., 2010, it can hardly be disputed that the documents in question belong to the petitioners. The petitioners required vacant possession of the land to be able to pass on the title and vacant possession. To be able to do so, the petitioners entered into agreements with the tenants. Such documents thus are documents which definitely belong to the petitioners. Simply because on subsequent date, the land was sold, may have a bearing on the title of such land, the same would not in any manner alter the nature of the document concerned. Such documents belong to the petitioners and continue to so belong, irrespective of the transfer of the title of the land. We do not see how the petitioners can contend that simply because at a subsequent point of time they disposed of the property and transferred the title to the purchasers, the documents ceased to belong to them. The term ‘belong to’ has not been defined in the Act. In the Webster's Third New Intl. Dictionary, the word, ‘belong’ is described as, ‘to have relation or reference to a person or thing’. In Advanced Law Lexicon by P. Ramanatha Aiyar (3rd Edition), the term, ‘belong’ in context of s. 400 IPC means, ‘implied something more than the idea of casual association; it involves a notion of continuity and indicates a more or less intimate connection with a body of persons extending over a period of time sufficiently long to warrant the inference that the person affected was identified himself with a band, the common purpose of which is the habitual commission of dacoity’.

20. The documents executed between the erstwhile tenants of the petitioners regarding eviction of the tenants upon acceptance of sizeable payment by the petitioners definitely thus belong to the petitioners. It may be that as an evidence of passing on vacant and peaceful possession of the property, the petitioners handed over such documents to the purchasers to protect the interest of the purchasers against any action that may be initiated by the erstwhile tenants. The nature of the document or the fact that it belongs to the petitioners would not in any manner change. Likewise, the documents of sale also can be stated to belong to the petitioners. It is not in dispute that the petitioners were the sellers of the lands. They do not either doubt or dispute the documents of sale, or their respective signatures thereon. Term ‘belong’ is not defined and does not have legally technical connotation and therefore, we once again fall back on the dictionary meaning of the same. We need to ascertain if such document can be stated to ‘have relation or reference to the petitioners’. As noted, the petitioners were as sellers of the land, parties to the documents. They had admittedly executed such sale deeds. It cannot be stated that the sale deeds do not belong to them. Likewise, the receipts of payments also are documents belonging to the petitioners. They are alleged to have received various payments, in cash from the purchasers. If there are documents evidencing such particulars and if such documents are also signed by the petitioners, it can certainly be stated that such documents do belong to the petitioners.

21. Under the circumstances, we are of the opinion that the action initiated under s. 153C of the Act cannot be quashed on the ground on which writ petitions are presented before us. Petitions are therefore dismissed.