On appeal before the Tribunal, it was held that that recording of satisfaction by the Ld. AO of the person in respect of whom the search was conducted is a condition precedent for initi­ating action u/s. 153C. In the case of assessee, the satisfaction note had been recorded by the Ld. AO of the assessee and not by the Ld. AO of the companies in whose case search was conducted. Also, the seized documents were not relevant to the assessment year under consideration. Therefore, it was held that, since no satisfaction note as required by law was recorded in the case of the companies in respect of whom search was conducted, the assumption of jurisdiction by the Ld. AO to issue notice u/s. 153C was void ab initio and bad in law and vitiated the entire assessment proceedings u/s. 153C. (AY .2011-12)