Rastogi, J. - (1.) This is a reference under Section 256(1) of the I.T. Act, 1961 (hereafter "the Act"). The assessment year involved is 1973-74, the accounting period being the financial year ending March 31, 1973. The following questions have been referred for the opinion of this court by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Allahabad Bench, Allahabad (hereafter "the Tribunal") at the instance of Commissioner of Income-tax : "1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the second agreement dated December 1, 1972, filed as late as on July 25, 1974, could be read as part of the instrument of partnership filed on March 27, 1973 ?
(2.) Whether the application in Form No. 11 accompanied by a partnership deed which did not contemplate any stipulation to the effect that the guardian of the minors had agreed to their admission in the partnership can be called only a defective application and the defects for which could be remedied later on ?
(3.) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was in law justified in holding that the assessee-firm was constituted by a valid partnership deed and that it was entitled to the benefits of registration.?" 2. The facts found, briefly stated, are : The respondent-assessee, M/s. Commercial Finance Corporation, Allahabad, was a partnership firm of which one of the partners was Sri Ram Babu as karta of his HUF. A partial partition took place in that HUF in 1963. It was accepted by the ITO by an order under Section 171 of the Act dated November 30, 1964. Accordingly, Sri Ram Babu retired from the firm in 1963, and in his place his two minor sons, Dhirlalit and Sanjaya, were admitted to the benefits of the partnership. A fresh instrument of partnership was drawn up on March 19, 1964. The deed was amended thereafter in 1966 and again in 1970. In the latter deed, Rahul, another minor son of Ram Babu, was admitted to the benefits of the partnership. Dhirlalit became major on July 7, 1972, and a fresh deed of partnership was executed on December 1, 1976, that is, during the previous year relevant to the year under consideration. On the same date another agreement was executed betweeen the partners of the firm on the one hand and the guardian of the two minors, that is, Sanjaya and Rahul on the other, whereby the latter gave his consent to the admission of his minor sons to the benefits of the partnership. 3. The assessee-firm made an application in Form No. 11 on March 27, 1973, for the grant of a fresh registration. The original partnership deed was filed with that application. The agreement was, however, filed on July 25, 1974. The ITO, following the decision of this court in Addl. CIT v. Uttam Kumar Promod Kumar [1974] 97 ITR 730, took the view that there was no valid deed of partnership on the basis of which the assessee could be granted registration. He did not consider the agreement executed on December 1, 1972, as a part of the partnership deed and thus in his opinion the guardian of the minors had not expressed his consent to their admission to the benefits of the partnership. He was also of the opinion that in case these two documents formed part of the same transaction even then registration could not be granted because the application for registration was defective and incomplete and he had no power to condone the delay. In the result the assessee's application for the grant of a fresh registration was rejected.;