In Brief
The appellant, a partner in a searched firm, challenged a second notice issued under Section 158BD after refusing to accept a first notice under Section 158BC. The Supreme Court held that Section 158BC (applicable to searched entities) requires no prior satisfaction, but Section 158BD (applicable to third parties) requires the Assessing Officer to form satisfaction that undisclosed income belongs to someone other than the searched person. Since the first notice was issued before examining seized materials, it could not satisfy Section 158BD's requirement. The Assessing Officer correctly issued a fresh notice after recording proper satisfaction. The Court upheld the High Court judgment and dismissed the appeal.
The lawyer headnote and full judgment text are available to registered users.