RAJAGOPALAN, J.

The petitioners, Veerappan Chettiar and Angidi Chettiar, along with two others, Ramaswami and Sundaram, constituted a firm with the vilasam Messrs. S. V. Veerappa Chettiar and Co. The firm was registered under section 26A of the Income-tax Act for the assessment years 1947-48, 1948-49 and 1949-50. The partnership was dissolved with effect from 13th April, 1951, and notice of the impending dissolution was given to the Income-tax Officer on 10th April, 1951.

For the three assessment years mentioned above the assessee was the registered firm. The assessment for 1947-48 was completed on 22nd March, 1950, that for 1948-49 on 28th September, 1950, and that for 1949-50 on 17th November, 1951. In the course of each of these assessment proceedings and before the assessment was completed, the Income-tax Officer issued notices to the assessee as required by section 28(3) of the Act, that it was proposed to take action to levy a penalty under section 28(1)(c). Those notices were dated 20th March, 1950, 27th September, 1950, and 15th November, 1951, respectively. The notices that related to 1947-48 and 1948-49 were thus issued before the dissolution of the firm, while that for 1949-50 was issued only after the partnership had been dissolved. Eventually, on 20th May, 1954, penalties were levied under section 28(1)(c) of the Act for each of the three assessment years. By that time the firm ceased to be in existence. Further Sundaram, who had been one of the partners, died on 5th March, 1953.

In the course of the proceedings under section 28 of the Act before the Income-tax Officer none of the quondam partners raised the issue whether the Income-tax officer had any jurisdiction to levy a penalty on the firm or on the partners of that firm after its dissolution. But that point was specifically taken by Veerappan Chettiar when he moved the Commissioner of Income-tax Under section 33A of the Act to set aside the orders of the Income-tax Officer. The Commissioner applied under article 226 of the Constitution for the issue of a writ of certiorari, with reference to each of the three assessment years, to set aside the orders of the Income-tax Officer confirmed in effect by the Commissioner of Income-tax. Since the questions which arise for consideration are identical in these three petitions, we shall dispose of them by a common judgment.During the pendency of these petitions in this Court the first petitioner, Veerappan Chettiar, died. The second petitioner continued the proceedings.

The only ground on which the validity of the proceedings taken by the Income-tax Officer under section 28 of the Act was attacked was that after the dissolution of the firm, which was the assessee assessed to income-tax in the relevant assessment years, there was no statutory provisions for the levy of any penalty, either on the firm or on any of the persons that had been partners of the dissolved firm. It was urged that the orders of the Income-tax Officer dated 20th May, 1954, were beyond his jurisdiction to issue.

The relevant portion of section 28(1) run :

"If the Income-tax Officer, .........., in the course of any proceedings under this Act, is satisfied that any person -

...............................................

(c) has concealed the particulars of his income or deliberately furnished inaccurate particulars of such income;

he....... may direct that such person shall pay by way of penalty, ..... in the cases referred to in clauses (b) and (c), in addition to any tax payable by him, a sum not exceeding one and a half times the amount of the income-tax........ which would have been avoided if the income as returned by such person had been accepted as the correct income."

The "person" who was liable to be penalised under section 28(1)(c) of the Act, and was in fact penalised by the Income-tax Officer in these cases, was the assessee who was charged with "concealment of particulars of his income or deliberately furnishing inaccurate particul