https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=173623 Where a business continued under the same firm name through changes in constitution and, after dissolution, was carried on by the petitioner at the same premises as sole proprietor, the facts showed succession rather than discontinuance; section 44 did not displace section 26(2), and a section 34 notice addressed to the firm name was valid because the relevant assessee was the person responsible for the escaped income. Repeated attempts at personal service having failed and the residential addresses being unascertainable despite due diligence, affixation at the last known business premises constituted valid substituted service under section 63 of the Income-tax Act and Order V Rule 17 CPC. en-us Fri, 09 Jan 1959 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 18 Sep 2015 17:08:20 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=173623 Where a business continued under the same firm name through changes in constitution and, after dissolution, was carried on by the petitioner at the same premises as sole proprietor, the facts showed succession rather than discontinuance; section 44 did not displace section 26(2), and a section 34 notice addressed to the firm name was valid because the relevant assessee was the person responsible for the escaped income. Repeated attempts at personal service having failed and the residential addresses being unascertainable despite due diligence, affixation at the last known business premises constituted valid substituted service under section 63 of the Income-tax Act and Order V Rule 17 CPC. Case-Laws Income Tax Fri, 09 Jan 1959 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=173623