9911796707
TMI Blog1966 (12) TMI 3X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he remaining profits in certain proportions and that, should losses occur in the business of the partnership, the minor shall not be responsible for the same. The firm had applied for registration under the Income-tax Act for the first time during the assessment year 1950-51 and had obtained renewal thereof for the succeeding years 1950-51 to 1955-56. The relevant assessment year for the purpose of the present reference is 1956-57, the corresponding accounting year being April 2, 1955, to April 17, 1956. It is admitted that the minor, Om Prakash, attained majority on the 5th September, 1955. An application for renewal of the registration with respect to this partnership for the year 1956-57 was made on the 15th June, 1956. This application was signed by the two partners, Tirkha Ram and Nandlal, only and although Om Prakash had become a major on the 5th September, 1955, it did not bear his signatures. The Income-tax Officer refused registration for the year in question on the ground that as Om Prakash has become major and he had not opted to go out of the firm, he must be treated as having elected to have become a full-fledged partner and, that being so, the application for renewal ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... istration for the purposes of this Act and of any other enactment for the time being in force relating to income-tax or super-tax. (2) The application shall be made by such person or persons, and at such times and shall contain such particulars and shall be in such form, and be verified in such manner, as may be prescribed ; and it shall be dealt with by the Income-tax Officer in such manner as may be prescribed. " Rule 2 of the Rules, in so far as it is material for our purpose, reads as under : " Any firm constituted under an instrument of partnership specifying the individual shares of the partners may, under the provisions of section 26A of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922 (hereinafter in these rules referred to as the Act), register with the Income-tax Officer, the particulars contained in the said instrument on application made in this behalf. Such application shall be signed by all the partners (not being minors) personally, or in the case of a dissolved firm by all persons (not being minors), who were partners in the firm immediately before dissolution and by the legal representatives of any such partner who is deceased.... (c) where the application is for renewal of r ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... The important words in these rules are (1) " all the partners " and (2) " personally. " That being so we cannot but hold that an application for registration to be competent must be signed by all the partners of the firm and not by only a majority or some of them and, further, it must be signed by each of the partners himself and not through the instrumentality of any agent of his in spite of the fact that he may have been expressly authorised to do so. There have been a number of decisions of the other High Courts and even of the Supreme Court for the view that the partners must sign the application for registration personally, i.e., by themselves and that this requirement of the rule is mandatory. In Koduri Sambasivadu & Sons v. Commissioner of Income-tax it was, held that an application for registration of a firm under section 26A of the Income-tax Act, 1922, must be signed by all the partners themselves and that the statutory provisions did not permit any agent signing on behalf of all the partners, and this requirement of the rule was mandatory. In this case only four of the partners had signed personally but the fifth had not signed, and for this fifth partner another partn ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... oner of income-tax. In this case a partnership consisted of 7 members and the application for registration was signed by as many as 6 of them, the 7th being unable to sign as he was a security prisoner under the Defence of India Rules at that time. The Special Income-tax Officer, Nagpur, rejected the application both on the ground that the partnership deed itself had not been signed by all the partners mentioned in the body and, further, there was no signature of, one of the partners on the application. On appeal, the Appellate Assistant Commissioner set aside the order of the Income-tax Officer, and ordered that he do register the firm after obtaining the signatures of the 7th partner both on the application for registration and the deed of the partnership. On a further appeal, the Tribunal set aside the order of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner, and held that the Income-tax Officer was justified in refusing to register the firm as the application for registration was not signed by the aforesaid partner. The matter was then taken up on reference to the Nagpur High Court, which upheld the order of the Tribunal, and it was eventually carried to the Supreme Court. In upholding th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
