9911796707
TMI Blog1959 (4) TMI 5X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... erring the following question of law to the High Court of Assam : " Whether on the above facts and in the circumstances of the case the Tribunal was right in refusing the claim for registration of the assessee firm under section 26A of the Indian Income-tax Act." The High Court answered the question in the affirmative and hence the appeal. The deed of partnership dated March 5, 1946, was entered into between nine partners, two of whom were Rameshwarlal Ajitsaria, son of Kissendayal Ajitsaria of No. 43/44, Cotton Street, Calcutta, representing the firm of Ramswarup Maliram (of the first part) and Dwarkanath Himatsingka son of Mahadeolal Himatsingka deceased representing the firm of Ghasiram Dwarkadas, Gauhati (of the seventh part). The ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... partners of the component firms had in the profits of the appellant firm and as the words of section 26A did not permit of any elasticity of construction rejected the application for registration. On appeal taken to the Appellate Assistant Commissioner, the Appellate Assistant Commissioner by his order dated August 23, 1951, relying upon the instructions of the Central Board of Revenue which were in operation at the relevant period, held that the registration should have been allowed by the Income-tax Officer since the two partner firms were also constituted under the instruments of partnership specifying the individual shares of the partners, but in so far as the application for registration had not been signed by all the partners person ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... or registration did not also fulfil the essential requirements of the rules ; it was neither signed by each of the partners of the constituent firms nor did it specify the individual shares of these partners either in the partnership or in the balance of profits. These defects were fatal to the application for registration and the language of section 26A being mandatory and imperative the application was justifiably rejected. The appellant firm has contended before us that under section 19(2)(h) of the Partnership Act a partner has no power to bind his firm by entering into a partnership on its behalf and if he does so he only becomes a partner in his individual capacity and not the firm. It was, therefore, urged that Rameshwar Lal Ajitsa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the further fact apparent in the record that profits of the accounting year under consideration were not credited in the books of account of the appellant firm to the two individuals, Rameshwar Lal Ajitsaria and D. N. Himatsingka, but were credited to the two firms whom they were representing in the partnership and there had been no allocation of profits to these two individuals as two individual partners of the appellant firm. This circumstance was, in any event, against the appellant firm and the position could not be saved by any theoretical argument based on section 19(2)(h) of the Partnership Act or otherwise. If the position, therefore, is that two out of nine partners of the appellant firm were the two partnership firms of Messrs. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
