Partnership registration under the agricultural tax law requires an operative deed during the accounting year; retrospective registration is barred.

Registration of a firm under section 27 of the Agricultural Income-tax Act, 1950 is available only where the firm is constituted under an operative instrument of partnership specifying the partners' shares and the firm actually existed in conformity with that instrument during the relevant accounting year. Where the partnership deed came into existence only after the relevant period, and no earlier instrument or proved oral partnership was shown, the statutory condition was not met. Retrospective registration cannot be granted to cure the absence of a qualifying partnership during the accounting year, on the reasoning applied by the Kerala HC with reference to the requirement analogous to section 26A of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether registration of a firm under section 27 of the Agricultural Income-tax Act, 1950 requires the firm to have been constituted under an instrument of partnership in existence during the relevant accounting year; (ii) whether registration can be granted retrospectively in the absence of such an instrument during the relevant period.

Issue (i): Whether registration of a firm under section 27 of the Agricultural Income-tax Act, 1950 requires the firm to have been constituted under an instrument of partnership in existence during the relevant accounting year.

Analysis: Section 27 contemplates registration only of a firm constituted under an instrument of partnership specifying the individual shares of the partners. The legal position applied was that registration is available only where the firm is genuine and has actually existed in conformity with the instrument during the accounting year. On the facts, the partnership deed came into existence only after the relevant years, and there was no established instrument or proved oral partnership for the earlier period.

Conclusion: The requirement of an instrument of partnership in existence for the relevant year was mandatory, and the issue was decided against the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether registration can be granted retrospectively in the absence of such an instrument during the relevant period.

Analysis: The power of registration under section 27 was read in light of the conditions analogous to section 26A of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, which required the partnership to exist in conformity with the instrument in the accounting year. Since the instrument was executed long after the relevant period and the factual materials did not show a pre-existing partnership of the requisite nature, retrospective registration could not be sustained.

Conclusion: Retrospective registration was not permissible on the facts, and the issue was decided against the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The reference was answered in favour of the Revenue, and the claim for registration with retrospective effect was rejected.

Ratio Decidendi: Registration of a firm is permissible only when the partnership is constituted by an operative instrument of partnership and the firm actually existed in conformity with that instrument during the relevant accounting year; retrospective registration cannot cure the absence of such existence.

---