The assessee challenged the search and seizure action and consequential notices. Dismissing the writ petitions the Court held that the files relating to the recording of “information” and “reasons to believe’” showed that the officer had recorded cogent reasons for the initiation of the search itself. The records revealed that the officer had information in his possession to lead to the belief that action under section 132 was warranted. Reasons to believe had been recorded as had the reasons to suspect, based upon which the premises of connected entities and persons had been searched. The procedure to be followed in noting the information received as well as the recording of reasons was in line with the requirements of the Act. Court also held that the search was concluded on August 11, 2019 and notices under section 153A were issued to all the assessees on February 3, 2020. However, it was only on September 10, 2020 that the seized records had been handed over by the officers constituting the search team, to the jurisdictional Assessing Officer. Handing over of the documents beyond 60 days did not vitiate the notices, issued prior to the expiry of the overall limitation provided for completion of assessment. The notices under section 153A were valid. That the proceedings under section 153C were as on date at a very preliminary stage and the assessees had approached the court challenging the very initiation of proceedings by notices. To intervene at this stage would require the establishment of legal error or a high degree of perversity in the proceedings, which threshold had not been achieved in this case. The notices under section 153C were valid. That six assessees had challenged the centralisation of their assessments as being arbitrary, illegal and contrary to the provisions of section 127. A perusal of the files showed that sufficient opportunity had been afforded to the assessees prior to the passing of the impugned orders. With the communication of the reasons and the opportunity granted to respond, the responsibility cast upon the Department by the provisions of section 127 stood substantially discharged. No doubt, the orders of centralisation ought to have been served upon the assessees and the failure to do so constituted a procedural irregularity. However, it was not, on balance, and in the present circumstances, where the assessees had been afforded opportunity to respond and had, in all but one case, not so responded, so grave as to go to the root of the matter and vitiate the proceedings totally. The reasons for centralisation revealed that the consolidation proposed was for reasons of administrative efficiency and convenience and there had been no denial of this aspect of the matter by the assessees. The orders for transfer of cases was valid. That with regard to the challenge to the orders under section 281B though the parties would agree that there had been some extension of the orders passed originally, there was lack of clarity on the number of extensions and the periods that such extensions covered. No material had been placed before the court to the effect that the extensions were contrary to statute. The orders under section 281B were valid. There was no legal infirmity in the notices and orders of assessment. The orders of assessment were valid. (AY-2014-15 to 2019-20)