1962 (3) TMI 108 - HC - Income Tax

Assessee firm denied registration under section 26A for lack of valid partnership deed

The court concluded that the assessee firm was not entitled to registration under section 26A for the period from January 1, 1953, to July 1, 1953, due to ... - Issues Involved:1. Whether the assessee firm was entitled to registration under section 26A for the period from January 1, 1953, to July 1, 1953.2. The validity of the supplementary deed of partnership dated July 2, 1953.3. The implications of the retirement and admission of partners on the partnership's continuity and registration.Detailed Analysis:1. Entitlement to Registration under Section 26A for the Period from January 1, 1953, to July 1, 1953:The primary issue was whether the assessee firm was entitled to registration under section 26A for the specified period. The Income-tax Officer, Appellate Assistant Commissioner, and the Tribunal denied registration, holding that there was no proper distribution of profits in accordance with the deed dated July 2, 1953. The Tribunal also concluded that the firm was only entitled to registration from July 2, 1953, as no partnership deed was in operation from January 1, 1953, to July 1, 1953.2. Validity of the Supplementary Deed of Partnership Dated July 2, 1953:The supplementary deed of partnership dated July 2, 1953, was scrutinized to determine its validity and implications. The document was executed by six out of the eight original partners and the new partner. The Tribunal found that the supplementary deed did not support the existence of a partnership from January 1, 1953, as it indicated that the retirement of two partners and the admission of a new partner were agreed upon only on July 2, 1953.3. Implications of the Retirement and Admission of Partners on the Partnership's Continuity and Registration:The retirement of partners Esoof and Abdul Hamid and the admission of Ghulam Hossain were central to the case. The supplementary deed stated that the retiring partners were to be considered retired as of December 31, 1952, and the new partner admitted from January 1, 1953. However, the Tribunal found inconsistencies in the recitals of the supplementary deed, which contradicted the claim that the partnership was operational from January 1, 1953. The Tribunal declined to admit additional documents purportedly executed on December 31, 1952, and January 1, 1953, which the assessee claimed evidenced the retirement and new partnership agreement.Legal Reasoning and Judgment:The court examined section 26A of the Income-tax Act, which allows for the registration of firms constituted under an instrument of partnership specifying the individual shares of the partners. The Supreme Court's interpretation in R.C. Mitter & Sons v. Commissioner of Income-tax was referenced, clarifying that a partnership must be carried on in accordance with the terms of an operative instrument of partnership during the accounting year.The court emphasized that a partnership business can only spring into existence after the partners have agreed to unite, and it is not permissible to extend the life of the partnership retrospectively. The court found that the supplementary deed dated July 2, 1953, did not support the existence of a partnership from January 1, 1953, as claimed by the assessee.The court also addressed the argument that the partnership could be considered to have commenced from a date anterior to the agreement, finding it prima facie opposed to reason and common sense. The court examined the relevant rules and decisions, concluding that the partnership must be constituted under a valid instrument of partnership operative during the accounting year.Conclusion:The court concluded that the assessee firm was not entitled to registration under section 26A for the period from January 1, 1953, to July 1, 1953, due to the lack of a valid partnership deed in operation during that period. The question framed was answered in the negative, and the assessee was ordered to pay the costs of the reference.Judgment Delivered:- The question was answered in the negative.- The assessee was ordered to pay the costs of the reference.