Assessee owned land and entered into separate development agreements with five companies to raise security deposit towards development of land. A search was conducted at premises of assessee and final assessment order was passed under section 153A.  Thereafter, a search and seizure operation was conducted at premises of one M3M India Ltd, pursuant to said search, a panchnama was drawn and assessee-company’s name was added in it.  Consequently, a notice under section 153A was issued against assessee on ground that five companies, which had entered into development agreement with assessee, had subsequently entered into separate agreements with ten other companies and had received substantial amount. Assessing Officer assessed the amount as undisclosed income in hands of assessee and passed order under section 153A read with section 153D.  The assessee filed the writ petition and contended that  when there was no search conducted under sections 132 and 132A as against assessee and only a panchnama reflected name of assessee which was prepared at registered office of M3M India Ltd  action of Assessing Officer in passing second assessment order based on notice under section 153A without conducting search and seizure operation was unjustified and was to be quashed.   Panchnama would be a document which had to be prepared recording articles, material and objects which may be seized as incriminating documents at time of conducting search of premises, thus mentioning name of any company in panchnama would only reflect that documents relating to that company were found during search at premises and could not be treated to mean authorization issued to authorities under section 132. High Court quashed the assessment order.  (AY. 2011-12)