https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=9494 A petition styled under section 482 CrPC was treated as a disguised second revision and held barred by section 397(2), so inherent powers could not be used to bypass the statutory limitation. On merits, the complaint lacked a clear averment that the partners were in charge of and responsible for the firm's business, which is necessary to fasten vicarious liability under section 278B of the Income-tax Act. The absence of the legally required notice to treat the partners as principal officers was also noted. The discharge of the accused partners from the tax prosecution was therefore sustained. en-us Mon, 07 Mar 2005 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 23 Jun 2009 11:55:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=9494 A petition styled under section 482 CrPC was treated as a disguised second revision and held barred by section 397(2), so inherent powers could not be used to bypass the statutory limitation. On merits, the complaint lacked a clear averment that the partners were in charge of and responsible for the firm's business, which is necessary to fasten vicarious liability under section 278B of the Income-tax Act. The absence of the legally required notice to treat the partners as principal officers was also noted. The discharge of the accused partners from the tax prosecution was therefore sustained. Case-Laws Income Tax Mon, 07 Mar 2005 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=9494