https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=20518 Section 278B of the Income-tax Act fastens criminal liability on a partner only if the complaint specifically shows that, at the time of the offence, the person was in charge of and responsible for the firm's conduct of business. Mere repetition of statutory language is not enough; the complaint must disclose the individual partner's role and give a fair opportunity to defend. Where a partner is described as a sleeping partner, with no specific overt acts or material showing responsibility for the business, the complaint is insufficient. Corresponding specific allegations are also required for the invoked IPC offences, and the proceedings were liable to be quashed against the petitioner. en-us Fri, 20 Aug 1993 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 14 Nov 2009 13:51:42 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=20518 Section 278B of the Income-tax Act fastens criminal liability on a partner only if the complaint specifically shows that, at the time of the offence, the person was in charge of and responsible for the firm's conduct of business. Mere repetition of statutory language is not enough; the complaint must disclose the individual partner's role and give a fair opportunity to defend. Where a partner is described as a sleeping partner, with no specific overt acts or material showing responsibility for the business, the complaint is insufficient. Corresponding specific allegations are also required for the invoked IPC offences, and the proceedings were liable to be quashed against the petitioner. Case-Laws Income Tax Fri, 20 Aug 1993 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=20518