https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=5119 Liability under section 29 of the Income-tax Act, 1922 was treated as liability arising under the Act itself, not merely from partnership law, so a partner of an unregistered firm was not covered as an "other person liable to pay" solely because partners are jointly and severally liable. At the same time, the recovery machinery in section 46(2), read with civil court execution powers and Order XXI, rule 50 of the Code of Civil Procedure, was considered applicable where the partner admitted membership of the firm for the relevant accounting year. On that basis, no separate notice under section 29 was required against the partner and recovery of the firm's arrears from him was upheld. en-us Wed, 04 Sep 1968 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 20 Nov 2008 00:00:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=5119 Liability under section 29 of the Income-tax Act, 1922 was treated as liability arising under the Act itself, not merely from partnership law, so a partner of an unregistered firm was not covered as an "other person liable to pay" solely because partners are jointly and severally liable. At the same time, the recovery machinery in section 46(2), read with civil court execution powers and Order XXI, rule 50 of the Code of Civil Procedure, was considered applicable where the partner admitted membership of the firm for the relevant accounting year. On that basis, no separate notice under section 29 was required against the partner and recovery of the firm's arrears from him was upheld. Case-Laws Income Tax Wed, 04 Sep 1968 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=5119