Section 132 of the Income-tax Act, 1961—Search and seizure— The Tribunal has found that it cannot go into the validity of the search proceedings and that, at best, the Tribunal can examine whether there was a warrant of authorisation for conduct of the search and it was rightly concluded that there was a warrant in the name of Sri. Alex C.Joseph, who was physically present at the premises of the firm when the search was conducted and it has also come out in evidence that despite, this person being not shown as a partner of the firm, he was actively involved in the affairs of the firm and continued to manage its affairs and also the assessee was not registered as a partnership firm and it was assessed as an Association of Persons. That apart, materials were seized from the premises, which would substantiate the allegations made against the firm, so as to proceed against the firm under the provisions of the Act. CIT vs. Chekkattu Chitty Funds . [2018] 7 ITCD Online 116 (KER)