1964 (11) TMI 11 - SUPREME COURT

Whether the aforesaid order of the Commissioner under section 33B cancelling the registration of the firm for the three years 1952-53, 1953-54 and 1954-55 is lawful ?

If the answer to the above question is in the affirmative, whether the firm is registrable under section 26A for the aforesaid assessment years ?

Held that:- High Court came to the correct conclusion that the partnership was a genuine one, that the partition in the joint Hindu family allotting specific shares to the members of the family might have affected the accountability of the two partners of the firm to the other members of the family, but qua the partnership their relationship with the other partners had not in any way been affected and, therefore, the Tribunal went wrong in holding that the registration of the said partnership was rightly refused. In the result, it correctly answered the first question in the negative and the second question in the affirmative. Appeal dismissed.