https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=277037 Penalty under section 28(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act could not be levied on a firm after its dissolution, because the liability attached only to the person alleged to have concealed income and a non-existent entity could not be penalised. Section 44, which governs assessment and tax recovery in the case of a discontinued firm, did not extend to penalty proceedings and did not create vicarious liability for the erstwhile partners. The Court therefore held that the penalty orders against the dissolved firm were without jurisdiction and quashed the orders, including the revisional orders affirming them. en-us Fri, 03 May 1957 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 22 Nov 2018 16:19:31 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=277037 Penalty under section 28(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act could not be levied on a firm after its dissolution, because the liability attached only to the person alleged to have concealed income and a non-existent entity could not be penalised. Section 44, which governs assessment and tax recovery in the case of a discontinued firm, did not extend to penalty proceedings and did not create vicarious liability for the erstwhile partners. The Court therefore held that the penalty orders against the dissolved firm were without jurisdiction and quashed the orders, including the revisional orders affirming them. Case-Laws Income Tax Fri, 03 May 1957 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=277037