As per case facts, a search was conducted at the appellant's firm. Subsequently, a notice under Section 158BC was issued to the appellant, who then filed a block return. Later, ... a Block Assessment Order for the firm led to a directive to initiate proceedings against the appellant under Section 158BD, resulting in a fresh notice to the appellant. The appellant contested the validity of this second notice throughout various appellate stages up to the High Court, which dismissed his appeal. The question arose whether the issuance of a second (fresh) notice under Section 158BD of the IT Act was valid. Finally, the Supreme Court held that the initial notice to the appellant was not valid as the Assessing Officer could not have reasonably formed the necessary satisfaction regarding undisclosed income belonging to the appellant without a thorough examination of the seized material. Therefore, the Assessing Officer was justified in issuing a fresh notice under Section 158BD after properly recording satisfaction that undisclosed income might belong to the appellant, as this section applies to persons other than the one searched where undisclosed income is identified. The appeal was dismissed.