After the discontinuance of a firm, it ceases to exist as a legal entity and cannot be assessed as such. The partners of a discontinued firm become jointly and severally liable to assessment under Section 44 of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, and must be assessed individually or jointly, not as a firm.

( 1 ) THE facts In this case are shortly as follows : The petitioner, Manindra Lal Goswami, carried on a business in co-partnership with one B. R. Das Gupta and one P. C. Mukherji under the name and style of 'dyes and Chemical Agency', at No. 12, Dalhousie Square, Calcutta. The partnership commenced from 1-4-1940 and was discontinued as and from 31-3-1944. On or about 25-11-1944 notice was issued under Section 34, Indian Income-tax Act. So far as the petitioner is concerned, it was issued in this form:"notice under Section 34 of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922 (XI of 1922)No. III (1)/1946 income-tax Office date 25-11-44 to M. L. Goswami, Esqr. , Partner of M/s. Dyes and Chemical Agency c/o Bengal Engineering Co. , Ltd. , 12, Dalhousie Square, Calcutta. Whereas in consequence of definite information which has come into my possession, I have discovered that your income assessable to income-tax for the year ending 31st of March 1944 (a) escaped assessment: i therefore propose to assess the said (a), escaped assessment: i hereby require you to deliver to me not later than 5-1-45 : or within thirtyone days of the receipt of this notice a return in the attached form of your total income and total world income assessable for the said year ending 31st of March 1944. "

( 2 ) IT will be observed that the notice was not on the firm but on an individual partner calling for a return of his income, that is to say, his total world income, which would include not only his income from the firm but from other sources as well. I am informed that a similar notice was issued to the partner B. R. Das Gupta. The notice was received by the petitioner on 30-11-1944. It appears that he received the notice but did nothing about it. On the other hand, Sri Das Gupta filed a return. At the hearing before the Income-tax Officer, which took place on 12-12-1947 Daa Gupta appeared and the firm was assessed for the year 1943-44. A copy of the assessment order dated 12-12-1947 is annexed to the petition and is marked 'a'. In the assessment order, the name of the assessee is stated to be "dyes and Chemical Agency: represented by Mr. B. R. Das Gupta". The status was URP which means 'unregistered firm', It is further stated in the said order that the firm was R and OR which means 'resident and ordinarily resident'. The assessment was stated to have been under Section 23 (3) read with Section 34. It appears from the assessment order itself that the return showed a net loss of Rs. 1,889/-, but this was not accepted by the Income-tax Department which assessed the firm upon a total income of Rs. 45,101/ -. It was directed that demand notice and challan was to be issued on the unregistered firm. It is stated in the petition that notice of dissolution of the firm was served on the then income-tax Officer, District III (1) Calcutta in or about 14-1-1947. In the affidavit in opposition, reference has been made to the record, but there is no express denial. As the firm defaulted in making payment, the Income-tax Officer on 30-3-1949 sent to the Collector of 24 Parganas a certificate under Section 46 (2), Indian Income-tax Act for recovery from the firm of arrears amounting to Rs. 13,264/1. On 31-3-1949 the Certificate Officer signed and filed certificate No. 1537 IT of 1948-49 under the Public Demands Recovery Act against the firm. Thereafter the Certificate Officer issued notice on the firm under Section 7, Public Demands Recovery Act. This notice was returned un served with tile report that the firm the certificate debtor was not traceable. On 28-12-1950 the Certificate Officer reported the fact to the Income-tax Officer and requested him to furnish the correct address and present whereabouts of the certificate debtor, together with a list of his assets. On 13-2-1952 the Income-tax Officer stated that the firm was not traceable and he was therefore issuing notice to the partners for payment of the taxes, failing which, he would issue certificate under Section 4