Following search and seizure at the chairman’s premises, notices under s. 153C were issued for block years 1999–2000 to 2004–2005 and the search year 2005–06. The AO made additions after considering the assessee’s return; on appeal many matters were remitted, and on remand the AO reconfirmed earlier additions. The Tribunal, accepting the assessee’s additional ground, found that there was no satisfaction note on record indicating reason to believe that incriminating documents pertained to the other person (the assessee). The High Court held that a satisfaction note specific to the other person is a sine qua non before invoking s. 153C, and even where the AO for the searched person and the other person is the same, a separate satisfaction must be recorded; CBDT Circular No. 24/2015 dated 31‑12‑2015(2016) 380 ITR 32 (St)   supports withdrawal of litigation that does not meet Supreme Court guidelines. Accordingly, proceedings under S.  153C were vitiated for want of a proper satisfaction note and the appellate orders upholding that view were affirmed.(AY. 1999-2000 to 2005-06)