TMI Blog1978 (5) TMI 30X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed to a Full Bench because the Division Bench felt that this court's decision in Addl. CIT v. Uttam Kumar Pramod Kumar [1974] 97 ITR 730 (All) requires reconsideration. The reported decision was also of the present assessee, but it was rendered in respect of earlier assessment years. The facts are hence identical. The Tribunal has referred the following two questions of law for the opinion of th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... edged partners, though they were minors. This could not be validly done. The firm was not entitled to registration. This view was upheld in appeal. The assessee took the matter to the Tribunal. The Tribunal, on a construction of the partnership deed, held that the minors have been admitted to the benefits of the partnership. They were not full-fledged partners. Cl. 1 of the partnership deed pr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... are the main financiers of the business. The parties may charge a reasonable interest on the capital. " It is not disputed that Uttam Kumar party No. 3, and Pramod Kumar, party No. 4, were minors in November, 1961. From cl. 1, it is apparent that they were treated on par with parties Nos. 1 and 2. The fact that they were minors was not even mentioned. Under cl. 3, they were not only entitled to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... alid. " Under the general law of partnership a minor cannot be a full partner liable to share in the losses. He can only be admitted to the benefits of the partnership. In other words, he can only be entitled to share in the profits, and not losses. Under the partnership deed in question the minors were to share losses as well. This partnership was illegal, and was not entitled to be registered. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
