Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding


  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

TMI Blog

Home

1981 (8) TMI 118

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... to the asst. yr. 1975-76. For the asst. yr. 1976-77 which is the earlier of the two years under consideration the previous year commenced on 19th Jan., 1975. Lalitha attained majority on 15th April, 1975 and she elected to become a full-fledged partner. There was a second instrument of partnership executed which stated that certain of the partners had retired and minor Balaji had gone out. The partnership deed was dt. 5th Dec., 1975 and stated to have come into existence from 1st Nov., 1975. We give below the comparison of the partners according to the deed of 12th Dec., 1972 which was in force upto 31st Oct., 1975 and the partners according to the deed of 5th Dec., 1975 which was in force from 1st Nov., 1975: Upto 31-10-1975 .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ers had retired from 31st Oct., 1975 according to the deed of dissolution executed between them on 1st Dec., 1975. Thereafter new partners had come in. There is a mention against the name of Lalitha in the preamble that she is represented by K.S.S. Paramasivan but Paramasivan has not signed in the deed at any place and Lalitha alone was the signatory to the deed. There was also a mention that the first 7 persons have agreed to take in the 8th and 9th persons as partners. But there was no mention of 10th person in the deed i.e., Lalitha having been taken in as partner by others though she is the signatory to the deed and the deed states that she was liable to share the profits as well as in losses which was specified. According to the ITO si .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... therefore, refused registration for the asst. yr. 1976-77 and made a single assessment on the assessee firm taxing the income from 19th Jan., 1975 to 31st March, 1976 in the view that there was a change in the constitution of the firm. For the same reasons he refused registration for the asst. yr. 1977-78. 2. The assessee appealed but without success to the AAC who held that once the minor attained majority there had to be a mention in the partnership deed of such fact and since Lalitha attained majority on 15th April, 1975 a fresh instrument of partnership was executed w.e.f. 1st Nov., 1975 only, he took the view that during the interregnum from 15th April, 1975 to 31st Oct., 1975 there was no valid instrument of partnership and therefo .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... deed in her own right, she was a full-fledged partner and she was a contracting party to the deed. He also submitted that there mention of partners 1 to 7 agreeing to admit the partners 8th and 9th does not mean that Lalitha was not a partner in her own right in that instrument of partnership. He also submitted that there was no question of her being the benamidar of anybody else and even a literal reading of the deed could not lead to such an inference and for all these reasons registration should have been granted. The ld. Deptl. Rep. submitted that for the reasons given in the order for 1976-77 registration was also refused for asst. yr. 1977-78. He took us through the various reasons relied on by the ITO and submitted that these were va .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... Lalitha was the contracting party the mention in the deed that partners 1 to 7 had taken persons 8 and 9 as partners cannot lead to an inference that Lalitha was also not a partner. In the view that we have taken it is clear that she was not the benamidar of Paramasivan and the aforesaid reason also which weighed with the ITO considering registration could not be granted ceases to have relevance. The Board in Circular F. No. 26/3/65-IT(A-I) dt. 20th May, 1967 had again laid down instructions that merely because one of the partners was paid salary which was not specifically mentioned in the instrument of partnership etc., the firm should not be denied registration. It would follow therefore, in this case that because partner Ramaswamy was pa .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates