K.C.AGRAWAL, J. - (1.) The question that has been referred in this case is whether, on the facts and in the circumstances, the assessee -firm was entitled to registration within the meaning of Section 185 of the Income -tax Act, 1961 ? '
(2.) THE assessee is a firm constituted under a deed of partnership dated April 1, 1966. Out of the nine partners mentioned in the deed, Smt. Saroj Gupta was a minor. She was admitted to the benefits of partnership with effect from the aforesaid date. She attained majority on May 10, 1966, that is, only after 40 days of her being admitted to the benefits of the partnership. On her attaining majority, no fresh deed was drawn up. She only expressed her desire to continue as a partner, as required by subsection (6) of Section 30 of the Partnership Act, by making an endorsement under her signatures. The endorsement made by her reads as under; ' I have attained majority on 10th May, 1966, and I hereby give consent of becoming a partner in the partnership business styled M/s. United Commercial Traders, Railway Road, Meerut City, and agree to the terms and conditions contained in this partnership deed dated 1st day of April, 1966. Sd. Smt. Saroj Gupta.' The assessee -firm, thereafter, filed an application under Section 184 of the Income -tax Act, along with the deed of partnership dated April 1, 1966, for registration of the firm for the assessment year 1967 -68 (the accounting period of which was from April 1, 1966, to March 31, 1967). The application for registration was signed by all the partners, including Smt. Saroj Gupta. The Income -tax Officer refused to register the same on two grounds : firstly, that as no fresh deed was drawn up on Smt. Saroj Gupta attaining majority on May 10, 1966, the assessee -firm was not entitled to get the registration, and, secondly, that the shares of profits and losses of all the partners, including Smt. Saroj Gupta, were not specified in the partnership deed dated April 1, 1966. On appeal, the Appellate Assistant Commissioner did not go into the question of the shares of profits and losses having not been specified in the partnership deed, but held that the refusal of registration by the Income -tax Officer was invalid as in his view Smt. Saroj Gupta having endorsed the partnership deed no fresh partnership deed was required to be executed. Feeling aggrieved by the order of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner, the Income -tax Officer filed an appeal to the Income -tax Appellate Tribunal (Delhi Bench), In the view of the Tribunal, the endorsement dated 10th May, 1966, on the deed constituted the execution of a new instrument of partnership and, therefore, the assessee -firm was entitled to get the registration. As regards the plea that the profits and lossess were not specified in the partnership deed, the Tribunal held that since the losses were to be borne by two of the adult partners alone, there was nothing to prohibit the assessee -firm from obtaining the registration. It was, thereupon, that the Income -tax Officerfiled an application under Section 256(1) of the Act for reference being made to this court. The same was allowed. Hence, this reference.
(3.) SECTION 184 of the Income -tax Act, 1961, lays down the conditions of registration and provides that an application for the said purpose will have to be made by an assessee to the Income -tax Officer on behalf of the firm. Sub -section (5) of the said section requires that an application shall be accompanied by the original instrument evidencing the partnership, together with a copy thereof. Rules 22 to 25 deal with the registration of firms. According to Rule 22, application for registration of a firm for the purposes of this Act shall be made in accordance with the provisions of Sub -rules (2) to (5). In the instant case, the application for registration was made by the firm in accordance with Clause (i) of Sub -rule (2) of Rule 22 in Form 11. The said form was signed by all the partners, including Smt. Saroj Gupta. - - - -;