SOMNATH IYER, J. - (1.)This reference at the instance of the assessees is made by the Income- tax Appellate Tribunal under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The father I.P.Munavalli and the son C.I.Munavalli are the assessees and the ass'essment year is 1963-64. The Hindu undivided family of which I.P. Munavalli was the karta, was carrying on a business in foodgrains and pulses and on November 9, 1961, according to the statement of the case submitted to us, the father and the son entered into an agreement of partnership under which the son became a woTking partner and the other partner was the Joint family of which the father was the karta. The profits and losses had to be shared equally by the two partners.
(2.)When the assessees made an application for registration of the firm under Section 185 of the Act, the Income-tax Officer refused registration on the ground that there was no partition between the members of the family, and there was no genuine partnership which came into being between the members of the family.
(3.)The appellate assistant commissioner was of a different view. In his opinion, a partnership between the Hindu Joint-family represented by the karta and a member of the coparcenary who' became a working partner was a good partnership and that there was no legal impediment to such a partnership coming into being. He was of the further opinion that the partnership was a genuine partnership. So, he granted the registration sought by the assessees.
;