TMI Blog1991 (8) TMI 61X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ssee-firm originally consisted of two partners, namely, Chhotalal and Chhaganlal with 4 minors having been admitted to the benefits of the partnership. On December 28, 1971, a deed of dissolution was executed indicating that the said partnership was dissolved with effect from October 19, 1971. On the same day, a new partnership deed was executed showing that a new partnership between Chhaganlal and Natvarlal with 4 minors having been admitted to the benefits of the partnership had come into existence from October 28, 1971. An application for registration of the firm was made in Form No. 11 on April 25, 1972 for Samvat year 2028, i.e., for the period from October 28, 1971, to November 6, 1972. The partnership deed dated December 28, 1971, wa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t that was not so and that the new partnership in fact came into effect from December 28, 1971, i.e., when the partnership deed was executed. The Tribunal, relying upon the decision in Kejriwal's case [1969] 71 ITR 463 (Cal), negatived the contention raised on behalf of the assessee-firm that, in any case, the benefit of registration should be granted to the assessee-firm for part of the accounting period, i.e., for the period from December 28, 1971, being the date on which according to the Tribunal the new firm was constituted, up to November 5, 1972. Section 184 of the said Act provides for application for registration of the firm for the purposes of the said Act. Such application may be made either during the existence of the firm or aft ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of, held that the decision of the Tribunal that the assessee was entitled to the benefit of registration for a part of the previous year and that the total income in such case should be apportioned between the partners who were entitled to receive the profits accordingly as they were entitled to share the profits, the firm being assessed as a registered firm in respect of the profits ending on such date forming part of the previous year and as an unregistered firm in respect of the profits for the remaining part of the previous year, was a correct conclusion. The Supreme Court found that, where the firm was dissolved on the death of a partner, that would not make the registration up to the date of the death of the deceased partner invalid a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on of the Calcutta High Court in CIT v. Kejriwal Traders [1969] 71 ITR 463 in which it was held that it was not permissible to break the periods of the accounting year and to allow piecemeal registration of the instrument of partnership under section 26A of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, is no longer good law. The observation of the Calcutta High Court that one would normally think that the instrument of partnership must be in existence for the whole of the accounting year and not for a part of the accounting year, which is sought to be inferred from the observations of the Supreme Court in R. C. Mitter and Sons v. CIT [1959] 36 ITR 194, is not warranted from the passage set out therein which is as follows (headnote) : "The words 'const ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
