https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=49471 A dissolved registered firm remained liable to penalty under section 28(1)(c) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922 for defaults committed during assessment proceedings, because the penalty machinery applied to the firm as a "person" and dissolution did not extinguish that liability. The Income-tax Officer's jurisdiction to levy penalty arose once satisfaction about concealment or other statutory conditions was formed during the assessment proceedings; that satisfaction did not require a separate notice or a penalty proceeding before completion of assessment. The penalty proceedings were therefore valid, and the challenge to them failed. en-us Thu, 18 Jan 1962 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 28 Aug 2014 17:57:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=49471 A dissolved registered firm remained liable to penalty under section 28(1)(c) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922 for defaults committed during assessment proceedings, because the penalty machinery applied to the firm as a "person" and dissolution did not extinguish that liability. The Income-tax Officer's jurisdiction to levy penalty arose once satisfaction about concealment or other statutory conditions was formed during the assessment proceedings; that satisfaction did not require a separate notice or a penalty proceeding before completion of assessment. The penalty proceedings were therefore valid, and the challenge to them failed. Case-Laws Income Tax Thu, 18 Jan 1962 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=49471