On writ dismissing the petition the Court held that Section  132(9A) can be construed as mandatory only to the limited extent of imposing a mandatory obligation on the authorised officer to hand over the seized materials to the jurisdictional AO but not with regard to time-limit; besides, in the absence of any reference or link between s. 132(9A) and ss. 153A to 153C, such noncompliance cannot be construed as vitiating the subsequent assessment proceedings. On facts seized materials which belonged to assessee were handed over to jurisdictional Assessing Officer on 20-11-2021.Assessment orders were issued on 30-3-2023 or 31-3-2023.   Time limit of 12 months would run from 31-3-2022 to 31-3-2023-Assessment orders were issued within period of limitation. Court also held that  issuance of notice under section 153A is triggered by search or requisition, whereas notice under section 153C is triggered only upon occurrence of three conditions.  The assessee did not raise any objections to the centralisation either by replying to this communication or otherwise in spite of being provided an opportunity to object. Mixed questions of fact and law are involved in determining whether the order under S. 127 was issued after obtaining the consent of or consulting the persons concerned. Mixed questions of fact and law cannot be decided in the absence of pleadings. Court also held that use of the expression if any in s. 69 indicates that that it would also apply to unexplained investments in cases wherein the assessee does not maintain books of account. (AY. 2018-19 to 2020-21)