Just a moment...
Convert scanned orders, printed notices, PDFs and images into clean, searchable, editable text within seconds. Starting at 2 Credits/page
Try Now →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 a separate notice of demand under section 29 of the Income-tax Act, 1922 was necessary before recovery proceedings could be taken against a partner of an unregistered firm, and whether the Collector could recover the firm's tax arrears from such partner under section 46(2) of that Act.
Analysis: The liability contemplated by section 29 was construed as liability arising under the Income-tax Act itself, not liability derived from the Partnership Act. A partner of an unregistered firm did not fall within the expression "other person liable to pay" merely because partnership law made the partners jointly and severally liable. The recovery machinery in section 46(2), read with the powers of a civil court under the Code of Civil Procedure, was held applicable to execution against a partner where the partner admitted membership of the firm for the relevant accounting year. Order XXI, rule 50 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 supported recovery against a partner in such circumstances.
Conclusion: No separate notice under section 29 was required against the partner, and the Collector could lawfully recover the tax arrears from him under section 46(2). The challenge to the recovery proceedings failed.