https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=38995 Penalty under section 271(1)(a) was not sustainable because valid service of the statutory notice under section 22(2) was not proved. Service on an employee who was not shown to be authorised to receive notice for the firm did not amount to legal service, and the manager's awareness of the notice was insufficient to cure that defect. In penalty proceedings, strict proof of statutory service was required. Continuation of proceedings after repeal of the old Act did not validate the defective notice, since continuation under section 297(2)(g) depended on the underlying notice and default being legally sustainable. en-us Mon, 30 Apr 1973 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 10 May 2016 14:57:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=38995 Penalty under section 271(1)(a) was not sustainable because valid service of the statutory notice under section 22(2) was not proved. Service on an employee who was not shown to be authorised to receive notice for the firm did not amount to legal service, and the manager's awareness of the notice was insufficient to cure that defect. In penalty proceedings, strict proof of statutory service was required. Continuation of proceedings after repeal of the old Act did not validate the defective notice, since continuation under section 297(2)(g) depended on the underlying notice and default being legally sustainable. Case-Laws Income Tax Mon, 30 Apr 1973 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=38995