Allowing the appeal of the revenue the Court held that , neither AO nor Tribunal in appeal could examine warrant of authorization for purpose of examining whether there existed reasons to believe on material before competent authority to order search u/s 132(1). Assessee has not disputed the panchanama prepared by the search team in the name of assessee.Block assessment is held to be valid .Addition was made on the basis of seized material ,Block assessment cannot be held to be invalid on the ground that the authorisation was not in the name of the assessee but the premises of the assesee .  Dismissing the appeal of the assessee the Court held that , S.158BD would have been attracted only when the search and seizure was made in the premises of another person and material collected belong to another person. In the present case , search and seizure was actually made on the premises on the premises of assessee and documents and material collected therefrom also pertain to it , therefore S.158BD is not attracted .  [BP 1-4-1994 to 28 -11-1996 )