The assessee challenged the search and seizure action and consequential notices. Single Judge  dismissed the writ petitions. On appeal the division Bench held that the order of the Single Judge would show that no finding was rendered by the Single Judge on the contention raised as to the illegalities committed by the search party pursuant to the authorisation. It is settled that search and seizure powers under tax laws have to be exercised within the bounds of law. Any action contrary to the relevant statutory provision in the present case, S. 132, may render the same vulnerable to challenge as infringing right to privacy. Right to life is one of the basic fundamental rights and not even the State has the authority to violate or take away that right. Article 21 of the Constitution of India takes all those aspects of life which go to make a person’s life meaningful. Importantly, denial of timely medical treatment would constitute infringement of the right to life guaranteed under Art. 21 of the Constitution of India. Nature of the issues raised require greater attention and closer examination and in the absence of an enquiry and finding on the issues, the Court is inclined to remand the  matter to the Single Judge for considering the above issues. Further, it needs to be examined if the recent judgment of 9 Judge Bench in K.S. Puttaswamy v. UOI  (2017) 10 SCC 1 recognizing right to privacy to be part of Art. 21 of the Constitution of India necessitates a revisit of Pooran Mal v. Director of Inspection (Inv.) & Ors. 1974 CTR (SC) 25 : (1974) 1 SCC 345, to see the impact of the judgment in Puttaswamy with regard to the view that illegally obtained evidence can be used. It is so, since violation of the safeguards relating to search would now render the search not just illegal but unconstitutional. Sequitur of an unconstitutional action is that it is rendered void. It is necessary to examine closely if the search is made strictly in accordance with law and whether violation of any of the statutory/constitutional safeguards renders the action/search vulnerable to challenge as offending Arts. and 265 of the Constitution of India. It may also be necessary to examine the resultant impact, if any, on the decision of the Supreme Court in Pooran Mal wherein it was held that illegally obtained evidence can be used if the test of relevancy is satisfied. The Court held that it is unable to concur with the order of the single judge in so far as  it finds that non-communication of order/ reasons under section 127 is only a procedural irregularity in as much as it runs contrary to the judgement of the supreme Court in the case of Ajantha Industries v. CBDT 1976 CTR 79/(1976) 1 SCC 1001. Non following the procedure laid down under section 127 and not giving an opportunity of hearing the order of transfer is nullity.  It may be necessary to examine if there has been acquiescence  on the part of the assessee in which event the non furnishing of reasons pales in to insignificance ; above enquiry was apparently not made by the single judge, matter is remanded for reconsideration. As regards the recording of the satisfaction the division Bench held that   Single Judge has erred in generalizing the challenge to the notices under S 153C issued to 12 entities on the basis of a satisfaction note for a single entity nor has the single judge applied the principle in CIT v. Sinhagad Technical Education Society  (2017) 397 ITR 344/  297 CTR 441. 156 DTR 161 (SC), wherein it was held that seized material must pertain to relevant assessment years in question-Matter is remanded for reconsideration.