TMI Blog1968 (10) TMI 14X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 1957. The partners of the firm were (1) C. T. Palu, (2) Chinnamma, the wife of Palu, (3) Thomas and (4) Joseph, parties (3) and (4) being the sons of parties (1) and (2). Joseph was then a minor ; and he was represented in the execution of the deed by Palu, who was his legal guardian. Palu retired from the firm with effect from November 30, 1960 ; and consequently the firm was reconstituted by the three remaining partners by a deed dated December 1, 1960. Joseph, the minor, was represented in this deed by the mother as guardian. Appendix "B" to this reference is a copy of this deed. It provided, among other things, that the profit and loss of the business would be divided among the three partners in the ratio of 50 : 25 : 25, and that Chinn ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... er in connection with the assessment for 1962-63 ; but the year of assessment shown in the declaration was 1963-64. The registration for 1962-63 was refused on the ground that there was no valid partnership deed, as the partnership included the minor and the deed was also executed by the minor. The assessee claimed that the above declaration should be treated as relating to 1963-64, and the firm should be registered for the said year on the basis of this declaration. The Income-tax Officer refused registration stating that the declaration really related to the year 1962-63, and that the clarification deed dated March 26, 1963, was not valid, as the minor was not a party to that document. The assessee filed an appeal ; and the Appellate Assi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ness of the grounds stated by the Appellate Tribunal for refusing registration of the firm. He submitted that, if the shares of the partners in the profit of the business are specified in the deed of partnership, it is not necessary to specify the shares in the loss, as the law provides that, in the absence of a contract to the contrary, the loss shall be borne in the same proportion as the profit. In support of this position, he relied on the decision of the Mysore High Court in R. Sannappa and Sons v. Commissioner of Income-tax. A different view has been taken by the Gujarat High Court in Thacker Co. v. Commissioner of Income-tax. We need not, however, examine the comparative merit of these two views because, on the facts of the instant ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
