https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=49530 Section 44 of the Income-tax Act, 1922 treated a discontinued firm as continuing for assessment purposes, and the word "assessment" was construed broadly to include the machinery for determining and enforcing tax liability. On that footing, penalty under Section 28(1)(c) formed part of the assessment process and could be imposed where the statutory conditions for concealment were met. Dissolution after the default did not prevent penalty proceedings, because discontinuance did not create a gap in the Act. The partners could not escape liability by dissolving the firm after the relevant default had been committed. en-us Tue, 29 Nov 1960 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 03 Nov 2025 15:38:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=49530 Section 44 of the Income-tax Act, 1922 treated a discontinued firm as continuing for assessment purposes, and the word "assessment" was construed broadly to include the machinery for determining and enforcing tax liability. On that footing, penalty under Section 28(1)(c) formed part of the assessment process and could be imposed where the statutory conditions for concealment were met. Dissolution after the default did not prevent penalty proceedings, because discontinuance did not create a gap in the Act. The partners could not escape liability by dissolving the firm after the relevant default had been committed. Case-Laws Income Tax Tue, 29 Nov 1960 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=49530