TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1988 (11) TMI 90
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
...., there were three partners of the firm but vide partnership deed dated April 1, 1973, a fourth partner was added with effect from April 1, 1973. During the accounting period from April 1, 1973, to March 31, 1974, there was no change in the constitution of the firm. The firm name of the head office was Jagjit Singh Jaspal Singh, whereas the name of the branch office was Jagjit Woollen Mills. Both the firms belong to the four partners and were covered by the partnership deed dated April 1, 1973. 2. The Income-tax Officer found two defects in the application : (1) that the application should have been in Form No. 11A, and (2) that instead of giving the firm name of the head office, the firm name of the branch office was mentioned for the pur....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d to process it for registration ?" 4. Section 185 of the Act prescribes the procedure on receipt of application for registration of a firm : if the firm is found to be genuine, registration would be granted but if not, then registration would be refused. Subsection (2) provides that where the Income-tax Officer finds some defects, opportunity is to be granted for rectifying the defects within a period of one month from the date of such intimation and if the defect is not rectified within that period, it will be open to him to reject the application. 5. Rule 22 of the Income-tax Rules, 1962, prescribes the forms for filing the application for registration of a firm. Sub-rule (2) provides that if there is a change in the constitution ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rt from slight deviation, considering a minor to be a partner who is admitted to the benefits of the partnership is considered partner for the purpose of the Act. Under the general law, "firm" is different from "firm name". Firm name is merely an expression whereas the firm is a compendium of the persons who agree to carry on business in partnership and such persons are called partners. In this behalf, the following observations of the Supreme Court in Dulichand Laxminarayan v. CIT [1956] 29 ITR 535, at page 541, deserve to be noticed. "It is clear from the foregoing discussion that the law, English as well as Indian, has, for some specific purposes, some of which are referred to above, relaxed its rigid notions a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....teways General Stores" to "Delight Stores". On account of the change of the firm name, the application for registration of the firm was declined by the Income-tax Officer and that decision was reversed by the High Court with the following observations (headnote) : "Though it may be convenient for a partnership to have a firm name for many purposes, it does not follow that the firm name is an, essential ingredient of the constitution of the firm and it is possible for a firm to carry on business even without assuming a firm name. It cannot, therefore, be held that there has been a change in the constitution of a firm by the mere fact that the name of the firm has been changed and the Income-tax Officer cannot refuse to ....