Penalty proceedings remain valid without statutory limitation, and use of a trade name does not change the assessee's identity.

Penalty under section 28(1)(b) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922 remained valid where the assessment record used the trade name of the business, because that description did not create a different legal person and the same proprietor was the intended assessee. Delay in completing penalty proceedings did not by itself invalidate the penalty, since the Act then contained no statutory period of limitation. The delay was also explained by transfers of the case and a stay pending the quantum appeal, so the objection based on lateness failed and the penalty was upheld.

---

---

Issues: Whether penalty was leviable under Section 28(1)(b) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, despite the assessment and penalty order being in different names in the assessment record and despite the delay in completing the penalty proceedings.

Analysis: The assessment and penalty orders both related to the same assessee, namely the proprietor of the business, and the use of the trade name in the assessment order did not create a different legal person. As to delay, the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, prescribed no limitation for completing penalty proceedings. The decision relied on by the assessee was distinguished, and it was held that delay by itself does not invalidate a penalty order where the statute contains no period of limitation, particularly when the factual background showed transfers of the case and a stay of the proceedings pending the quantum appeal.

Conclusion: The penalty was validly leviable and the objection based on name discrepancy and delay failed.

Ratio Decidendi: In the absence of a statutory period of limitation, penalty proceedings under the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922 are not invalid merely because of delay, and a trade name mentioned in the assessment record does not alter the identity of the assessee where the same legal person is intended.

---