Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Don't have an account? Register Here
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether penalty under section 28(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act could be levied on a registered firm after its dissolution by invoking section 44 of the Act.
Analysis: The liability to penalty under section 28(1)(c) attached to the assessee that had concealed income in the relevant assessment years. The firm ceased to exist on dissolution, and a penalty could not be imposed on a person that was not in existence on the date of the penalty order. Section 44 dealt with assessment and tax payable in the case of a discontinued firm, but its language did not extend to penalty proceedings. Penalty proceedings were distinct from assessment proceedings, and the statutory distinction between tax and penalty was preserved throughout the Act. Section 44 therefore did not create any vicarious liability for penalty against the erstwhile partners of the dissolved firm.
Conclusion: Section 44 did not authorise levy of penalty under section 28(1)(c) on the dissolved firm, and the penalty orders were without jurisdiction.
Final Conclusion: The writ petitions succeeded, and the penalty orders against the firm and the revisional orders upholding them were quashed.
Ratio Decidendi: Penalty under section 28(1)(c) can be imposed only on a person in existence when the order is made, and section 44 of the Income-tax Act does not extend the liability of a dissolved firm or its partners to such penalty.