https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=68666 The Tribunal partly allowed the appeals, ruling that partners are jointly and severally responsible for payment if a firm fails to pay, but directing the AO to first recover from the firm before pursuing partners. The Tribunal recognized the appellants' right to contest tax liability based on their claimed withdrawal from the partnership. It held that demand notices were invalid due to premature demands and lack of Departmental challenge. The Tribunal disagreed with the CIT(A) on the maintainability of the appeal, allowing the appellants to challenge the tax demand. It acknowledged the importance of providing a fair opportunity for the appellants to present their side. en-us Tue, 30 Oct 2007 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 31 Mar 2011 16:39:47 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=68666 The Tribunal partly allowed the appeals, ruling that partners are jointly and severally responsible for payment if a firm fails to pay, but directing the AO to first recover from the firm before pursuing partners. The Tribunal recognized the appellants' right to contest tax liability based on their claimed withdrawal from the partnership. It held that demand notices were invalid due to premature demands and lack of Departmental challenge. The Tribunal disagreed with the CIT(A) on the maintainability of the appeal, allowing the appellants to challenge the tax demand. It acknowledged the importance of providing a fair opportunity for the appellants to present their side. Case-Laws Income Tax Tue, 30 Oct 2007 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=68666