The assessee filed writ petition challenging the validity of the section 153A notices dated November 1, 2019 for the assessment years 2013-14 to 2018-19, on the ground that the time frame set out in section 132(9A), is mandatory and non-compliance therewith would render the notices issued initiating the process of assessment, invalid. Dismissing the petition the Court held that the undisputed position in this case was that the Deputy CIT (Inv.) and Assessing Officer were not the same person. The last of the authorisations in this case was on September 4, 2018 and the seized materials ought to have been handed over, in terms of section 132(9A) on or before November 3, 2018. Admittedly, the handing over had been only on August 20, 2019, more than nine months beyond the stipulated date. Though this constituted a gross procedural irregularity, it did not vitiate the notices issued. Thus, the jurisdiction assumed could not be faulted on this score. The notice was valid. (AY.2013-14 to 2018-19)