Assessee was director in two companies namely, Zenith Finvest and ARC Finance. He was partner in S.K. Investment, which was a partnership firm. Search in office premises of aforesaid three entities was conducted and certain documents including computerized cash book, journal, bank book, ledger and trial balance etc. relating to aforesaid entities, assessee and his family members were seized.  Simultaneously, a search was conducted in premises of J. M. (father of assessee) in which cash of Rs. 12.57 lakhs was found in safe in possession of assessee’s father was seized.  Assessing Officer made an addition of said cash in hands of assessee under provisions of section 158BD which was confirmed by Tribunal.   Statements of assessee and his father were recorded under section 131 wherein assessee claimed that cash seized from safe of his father belonged to his aforesaid three entities. Further, entire facts and evidences in form of seizure of books of account including cash book, statement of assessee and J.M. under section 131, statement of parties who made payment to entities of assessee recorded under section 131 and letters of J.M. and assessee evidencing sufficient explanation regarding cash seized to be belonging to aforesaid entities and reflected in their cash book were well available on record. Court held that  in ignorance of evidences on record, addition made by Assessing Officer/Tribunal in hands of assessee was unsustainable.  Even otherwise, since Assessing Officer had not prepared a satisfaction note either before or along with or even after assessment proceedings as mandatorily required under section 158BD, entire proceedings initiated by Assessing Officer to pass an assessment order under section 158BC was illegal and liable to be set aside. [BP. 1-4-1989 to 9—9-1999]