In Brief
A partnership firm was searched by income tax authorities in 1998. The Assessing Officer issued a notice under Section 158BC to the appellant (a partner) on the same day to file a return of undisclosed income. Later, a fresh notice under Section 158BD was issued. The appellant challenged this second notice, arguing the first notice was valid. The Supreme Court held that while Section 158BC does not require prior satisfaction, Section 158BD requires the Assessing Officer to examine seized materials and form satisfaction that undisclosed income belongs to the appellant, not the searched firm. Since the first notice was issued on the search date without examining seized materials, it could not satisfy Section 158BD requirements. The fresh notice under Section 158BD was therefore valid. Appeal dismissed.
The lawyer headnote and full judgment text are available to registered users.