https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=37019 Penalty under section 28(1)(b) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922 remained valid where the assessment record used the trade name of the business, because that description did not create a different legal person and the same proprietor was the intended assessee. Delay in completing penalty proceedings did not by itself invalidate the penalty, since the Act then contained no statutory period of limitation. The delay was also explained by transfers of the case and a stay pending the quantum appeal, so the objection based on lateness failed and the penalty was upheld. en-us Fri, 02 Mar 1979 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 26 Mar 2010 10:31:55 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=37019 Penalty under section 28(1)(b) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922 remained valid where the assessment record used the trade name of the business, because that description did not create a different legal person and the same proprietor was the intended assessee. Delay in completing penalty proceedings did not by itself invalidate the penalty, since the Act then contained no statutory period of limitation. The delay was also explained by transfers of the case and a stay pending the quantum appeal, so the objection based on lateness failed and the penalty was upheld. Case-Laws Income Tax Fri, 02 Mar 1979 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=37019