Search was conducted on various dates and electronic data was seized without following the Digital Evidence Investigation Manual issued by CBDT in terms of s. 119 of the Act. The assessee challenged the assessment orders passed by relying on the digital evidence collected on the grounds that the said evidence was not collected in terms of Manual issued by CBDT, hash value was not mentioned in Panchanama, copies thereof were not provided inspite of making several requests and orders were passed in violation of principles of natural justice. The Revenue contended that the assessee had filed appeals, seizure was in accordance with law, evidence relied upon to make additions was duly corroborated and writs deserved to be dismissed as alternative remedy available has been availed by the assessee. However, the Court rejected the contentions of the Revenue and held that the seizure was made without following the mandatory requirement of an independent witness, The Manual issued has to be followed in letter and spirit since the same was issued under section 119 of the Act and it was not optional, data relied upon for passing assessment order was not corroborated by any other evidence, cross-examination was not granted to the assessee of persons whose sworn statements were relied upon by the Revenue and thus, the said search and seizure is against the law and ab initio bad. However, taking into consideration the violation of principles of natural justice and avoiding multiplicity of proceedings, assessment orders were set aside and remitted back the matters to authorities concerned for reconsideration, and the assessee was granted cross-examination. The Assessing Officer was also directed to follow the above procedures in the event of issuance of any further show cause notices in connection with the present search and seizure relating to other assessment years. (AY. 2018-19)(SJ)