TMI Blog1978 (2) TMI 100X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... a was a minor. She was admitted to the benefits of partnership with effect from the aforesaid date. She attained majority on May 10, 1966, that is, only after 40 days of her being admitted to the benefits of the partnership. On her attaining majority, no fresh deed was drawn up. She only expressed her desire to continue as a partner, as required by sub-section (6) of section 30 of the Partnership Act, by making an endorsement under her signatures. The endorsement made by her reads as under : " I have attained majority on 10th May, 1966, and I hereby give consent of becoming a partner in the partnership business styled M/s. United Commercial Traders, Railway Road, Meerut City, and agree to the terms and conditions contained in this partne ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t of partnership and, therefore, the assessee-firm was entitled to get the registration. As regards the plea that the profits and lossess were not specified in the partnership deed, the Tribunal held that since the losses were to be borne by two of the adult partners alone, there was nothing to prohibit the assessee-firm from obtaining the registration. It was, thereupon, that the Income-tax Officer filed an application under section 256(1) of the Act for reference being made to this court. The same was allowed. Hence, this reference. Section 184 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, lays down the conditions of registration and provides that an application for the said purpose will have to be made by an assessee to the Income-tax Officer on behalf ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t that Smt. Saroj Gupta had made her endorsement on the partnership deed and had further signed Form 11, the same was sufficient in law to entitle the assessee-firm to get the registration. After having heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties, we are of the opinion that the submission advanced on behalf of the department cannot be accepted. There is nothing in section 184 or rule 22 of the Rules framed thereunder showing that the partnership deed should be signed by all the partners. What is required to be established for the claim of registration is that a partnership existed between the persons named therein. If the agreement had not been signed by one or more of the partners, but those not making the signatures assen ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... court, were that it was not impossible that a firm could be constituted under the agreement, although the agreement had not been executed by all the partners. To the same effect is the view of the Bombay High Court taken in Commissioner of Income-tax v. R. Dwarkadas and Co. [1971] 80 ITR 283. It has, however, been held that, " it is not necessary for every partner to sign the instrument of partnership, and that even though the instrument of partnership has been signed by only some of them, but if it had been assented to by the others, who had not signed it and they had joined in putting it forward along with the other partners for registration, it would be admissible for registration under the Indian Income-tax Act. The same is the view of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
