Registration of Firm: an instrument admitting a minor is void for registration; later acts cannot validate it.

Whether a firm can be registered when its partnership instrument admits a minor as a full partner was examined: admission contrary to the statutory procedure for minors renders the instrument void for registration purposes, and registration under the Income-tax Act must be founded on a valid instrument signed by major partners. The court held that post-majority acts by the former minor do not validate or reconstitute an originally void instrument absent the prescribed election and public notice; accordingly registration cannot be granted on an instrument invalid at execution.

---

---

Issues: Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the assessee-firm was entitled to registration under sections 184 and 185 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 where the partnership deed admitted a minor as a full partner contrary to section 30 of the Indian Partnership Act, 1932.

Analysis: The Court examined sections 184 and 185 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 which require that registration of a firm be founded on an instrument evidencing the partnership and signed by the major partners, and section 30 of the Indian Partnership Act, 1932 which permits a minor only to be admitted to the benefits of partnership and prescribes a statutory procedure and time-limit for election on attaining majority including the public notice requirement. The Court reviewed the facts that the partnership deed dated July 5, 1962, admitted a minor as a full partner and thus was contrary to section 30, rendering the instrument void for the purpose of registration. The Court considered prior authorities (including CIT v. Dwarkadas Khetan and Co. and Choudry Brothers v. CIT) and rejected the view that subsequent acts by the person on attaining majority (such as signing Form No. 11) could validate or reconstitute the original void instrument absent compliance with the statutory election and public notice provisions; registration under sections 184 and 185 cannot be granted on the basis of an instrument invalid at the time of its execution.

Conclusion: The assessee was not entitled to registration of the firm; the question is answered in the negative (decision in favour of the Revenue and against the assessee).

---