https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=17133 A complaint alleging offences under sections 276C and 277 of the Income-tax Act could proceed against the firm because no legal bar to prosecution was shown on the pleadings. The prosecution of the partner could not continue, however, because the complaint lacked a specific averment that he was in charge of and responsible for the conduct of the firm's business at the relevant time. The ruling reiterates that vicarious criminal liability under section 278B cannot be sustained against a partner or director without such a clear allegation. Proceedings therefore continued against the firm, but the partner was discharged from prosecution. en-us Thu, 23 Oct 1997 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 15 Sep 2009 13:35:18 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=17133 A complaint alleging offences under sections 276C and 277 of the Income-tax Act could proceed against the firm because no legal bar to prosecution was shown on the pleadings. The prosecution of the partner could not continue, however, because the complaint lacked a specific averment that he was in charge of and responsible for the conduct of the firm's business at the relevant time. The ruling reiterates that vicarious criminal liability under section 278B cannot be sustained against a partner or director without such a clear allegation. Proceedings therefore continued against the firm, but the partner was discharged from prosecution. Case-Laws Income Tax Thu, 23 Oct 1997 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=17133