Dismissing the appeal the Court held that mentioning the name of M3MIH for the address would not be a reason to hold that no search operation was conducted at the premises of the assessee because even if the name of the other private limited company was mentioned in the warrant, the fact remained that the registered address of the assessee-firm was searched and the names of their partners were mentioned. The findings of the Tribunal that there was no search conducted at the premises of the assessee were found to be erroneous and perverse. The laptop of another group of companies recovered from Mumbai. Recovery of the laptop was not from the office belonging to the assessee. The search operation in which the laptop was recovered was of different firm and it was not during the course of search operation conducted under section 132 against the assessee or its partners that such incriminating material was recovered. If there was any indication of violation of provisions of the Act or suppression of income or any other incriminating material, which may have been recovered from the premises, the proceedings under section 153A could be said to be justified and legal. However, since no such material was collected or found from the premises of the assessee, the proceedings initiated under section 153A were unsustainable. The pleas raised were purely factual which had been examined by the Tribunal. Proceedings, if at all which could have been initiated on the basis of material collected while conducting search of some other assessee and found to be relevant for the purpose was only under section 153C, since the provisions of sections 153A and 153C had been held to operate in different fields.(AY. 2012-13)