TMI Blog1968 (12) TMI 7X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ad, Shri Ramchandra Prasad Mahasaya and Shrimati Bidyawati Devi. Each of these partners had one-fourth share in the partnership firm and the partnership deed had been executed on the 22nd October, 1957. The firm was known as Shri Alankar Bhawan and had been registered under section 26A of the Indian Income-tax Act for the assessment year 1959-60. Shrimati Bidyawati Devi died on the 18th September, 1958, leaving behind her two heirs, who were Shri Birendra Kumar Gupta, her husband, and Kumari Rani her daughter, a minor. For the assessment year 1960-61 the firm applied for renewal of registration under section 26A. In place of Shrimati Bidyawati Devi came the husband and the daughter of the deceased. The application for renewal was made, so f ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... partnership was, not dissolved by the death of Shrimati Bidyawati Devi and that it continued with the heirs of the deceased being partners. The learned standing counsel has, on the other hand, contended that the partnership came to an end on the death of Shrimati Bidyawati Devi and that clause 13 of the partnership deed cannot be interpreted to mean that the partnership continued with the heirs of the deceased as partners in place of the deceased. We do not think that it is necessary to decide this question, as the reference can, be answered on the second point, which has been argued in this case. It appears from the judgment of the Appellate Tribunal that the objection which had been taken by the department was that the application for re ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ation. The only difference between that case and the instant case is that now we are concerned with a partnership firm in which it is said that two heirs of one of the original partners have stepped in by virtue of a clause in the original partnership deed. Assuming that they do so, it is clear that a minor has been described as a full-fledged partner in this case sharing the loss of the partnership also. The partnership which had applied for registration was, therefore, clearly an illegal partnership and, accordingly, the authorities were justified in refusing registration. Learned counsel for the assessee has tried to distinguish the decision in Commissioner of Income-tax v. Dwarkadas Khetan and Co. by urging that in that case the minor h ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
