TMI Blog1952 (3) TMI 54X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the provisions of Section 9(3) of the Act are attracted to the income from property ? We may at once point out that question No. (2) arises only out of the assessment and does not arise out of the order under Section 26A of the Act. The reference that was sought for was only against the order under Section 26A and not against the assessment order. Therefore question No. (2) should not have been referred by the Appellate Tribunal to this Court. The argument was therefore confined before us to question No. (1) alone. It is that question which we have to answer as arising out of the appellate order of the Tribunal. One S. Vincent executed a will on the 4th February, 1941, and died on 22 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the date of the family arrangement one of the sons, Dhanraj Vincent, was a minor and was represented by the eldest son as guardian. But in the partnership deed however Dhanraj Vincent signed as a major. Notwithstanding the execution of the partnership deed in 1942 no attempt was made by the assessees to get the deed registered under Section 26A of the Income-tax Act. For the first time an application to register the firm was made on the 11th March, 1946, during the assessment year 1945-46. The registration of this firm as a partnership was rejected by the Income-tax authorities and also by the Appellate Tribunal and at the instance of the assessee this reference was made to this Court. During the pendency of these proceedings, on the 1st No ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t he was a minor. The view taken was that because a minor could not be made a partner and as the deed purported to make Dhanraj a partner the whole of that deed was void and of no legal effect. The other aspect, whether the deed could not be so construed as to imply that the parties intended thereby to admit Dhanraj to the benefits of partnership was also rejected on the ground that the two could not be separated from the document, i.e , the intention to constitute a partnership could not be severed and from that an inference to admit the minor as a partner could not be made. We are however unable to accept this view. If the minor signed as major he could not bind himself by that contract. That does not mean that the partnership between the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
