Law:

Section:

Section 222 read with section 156 of Income-tax Act, 1961 [Corresponding to section 46(2) read with section 29 of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922] - Collection and recovery of tax - Certificate proceedings - Assessment year 1945-46 - Whether a notice under section 29 of 1922 Act is not necessary to be served upon partner of an unregistered firm before proceedings are taken for recovery of tax under section 46(2) - Held, yes FACTS The assessee was a partner in a firm. The partnership firm was assessed to income-tax of the assessment year 1945-46, on a total income of Rs. 64,622. The notice of demand was served to the assessee. The case of the assessee was that he had ceased to be a partner at the time of the assessment and was not liable to pay the income-tax assessed upon the partnership firm. It was also stated that no notice of the assessment proceedings was given to the appellant, nor was any notice of demand issued under section 29. Later the ITO forwarded a certificate to the Collector under section 46(2) for recovery of the tax due from assessee. He learnt of the proceedings for the first time in the third week of September, 1958, when the Naib Tahsildar (Collection) Nagina, asked him to deposit the amount of income-tax. The assessee thereafter moved the High Court for the grant of a writ in the nature of mandamus restraining the respondents from proceeding with the recovery of income-tax from the assessee. The writ petition was dismissed by the Single Judge on the ground that the liability of every partner in respect of the tax due from the firm was joint and several and hence it was open to the ITO to proceed against any one of the partners alone. The Division Bench also rejected appeal holding that even if the appellant had transferred his interest in the partnership firm there was no change in the constitution of the firm and the transferee got only the rights in the profits in lieu of the transferring partner who did not cease to be a partner. On appeal to the Supreme Court : HELD It was contended by the assessee that a notice of demand should have been issued against under section 29 before any recovery proceeding was initiated against him. The…

Deprecated: trim(): Passing null to parameter #1 ($string) of type string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 492