https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=276753 A notice under section 34 addressed to an individual partner as if the escapement were his personal income could not validly support assessment of a dissolved firm, because it did not clearly notify that the firm's income was in question. For a dissolved firm, the governing rule treated section 44 as requiring assessment of the partners who were members at dissolution, jointly and severally liable for the tax, rather than assessment of the firm as a continuing entity. The text also distinguishes statutory schemes where Parliament expressly preserves assessment of the original entity. The notice therefore could not found a valid assessment of the firm or its income. en-us Wed, 06 Mar 1957 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 16 Nov 2018 17:15:22 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=276753 A notice under section 34 addressed to an individual partner as if the escapement were his personal income could not validly support assessment of a dissolved firm, because it did not clearly notify that the firm's income was in question. For a dissolved firm, the governing rule treated section 44 as requiring assessment of the partners who were members at dissolution, jointly and severally liable for the tax, rather than assessment of the firm as a continuing entity. The text also distinguishes statutory schemes where Parliament expressly preserves assessment of the original entity. The notice therefore could not found a valid assessment of the firm or its income. Case-Laws Income Tax Wed, 06 Mar 1957 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=276753