1978 (12) TMI 8

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ership firm. It consisted of four major partners and Mahesh Kumar (minor) was admitted to its benefits. In the assessment year 1967-68, the ITO found that this firm was carrying on business in three names, M/s. Agarwal Metal Stores, M/s. Agarwal Hardware Stores and M/s. Oudh Iron Stores. The firm was maintaining three sets of accounts for each of the aforesaid three businesses. He further found th .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... stration. He also affirmed the finding of the ITO that the minor had been allocated his share in the loss. The appeal was dismissed. The assessee took the matter to the Tribunal. The Tribunal held that the deed of partnership if read as a whole abundantly made it clear that the four major partners had admitted Mahesh Kumar (minor) to its benefits. The document contemplated division of profits and .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... nce of the CIT, the Tribunal has referred the following questions of law for our opinion: " 1. Whether, on a correct interpretation of the partnership deed dated April 1, 1966, the Tribunal was right in holding that Shri Mahesh Kumar had been admitted to the benefits of the partnership ? 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that alloc .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... The first para of the partnership deed reveals the name and style of the firm as M/s. Sohan Lal Sons. Paragraph 2 gives the names of the various branches of the firm, namely, Agarwal Metal Stores, Agarwal Hardware Stores and Oudh Iron Stores. In para. 8 shares of the partners in the firm are specified. In para. 9, it is stated that the loss in the partnership was to be shared by the major partne .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... violated, because no part of the loss was allocated to the minor. The second question also fails. In respect of the third question, the minor's father did sign the deed. Merely because he did not add the phrase " on behalf of the minor ", it will not make the deed defective. It was admitted that the minor was admitted to the partnership. The guardian of the minor has signed the document. It sho .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X