https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=7363 Reassessment proceedings against a dissolved firm were treated as valid where notice was issued in the firm's name and served on a partner for pre-dissolution income. The limitation objection failed because the relevant date under the proviso to section 34(3) was the making of the assessment order, not its communication, and the amended provision applied. On the merits, the receipt of Rs. 1,75,000 was held to belong to the assessee on the surrounding facts and unsatisfactory explanation. Because the source of the funds was not proved from regular books, the entire receipt, not merely the profit element, was assessable as undisclosed income in the year of receipt. en-us Thu, 14 Nov 1968 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 18 Feb 2009 18:22:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=7363 Reassessment proceedings against a dissolved firm were treated as valid where notice was issued in the firm's name and served on a partner for pre-dissolution income. The limitation objection failed because the relevant date under the proviso to section 34(3) was the making of the assessment order, not its communication, and the amended provision applied. On the merits, the receipt of Rs. 1,75,000 was held to belong to the assessee on the surrounding facts and unsatisfactory explanation. Because the source of the funds was not proved from regular books, the entire receipt, not merely the profit element, was assessable as undisclosed income in the year of receipt. Case-Laws Income Tax Thu, 14 Nov 1968 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=7363