Binding departmental circulars protect partnership registration where guardian signatures are missing and no corrective was given.

Registration of a partnership could not be refused solely because the guardian of minors admitted to the benefits of partnership had not signed the deed. The Court treated the departmental circular issued by the Central Board as binding on the income-tax authorities, so the Income-tax Officer was required to act in accordance with it and, if necessary, give the guardians an opportunity to verify or sign the documents on behalf of the minors. As that course was not followed, the signature defect could not be used to deny registration, and the Revenue's request for a reference failed.

---

---

Issues: Whether registration of the partnership could be refused merely because the guardian of minors admitted to the benefits of partnership had not signed the partnership deed, and whether the departmental circular granting relief in such cases was binding on the income-tax authorities.

Analysis: The Court held that the circular issued by the Central Board was binding on the Department. Once that position was accepted, the Income-tax Officer was bound to act in accordance with it and should have afforded an opportunity to the guardians to verify or sign the documents on behalf of the minors, if so required. Since that course was not adopted, the defect in signature could not be used as a ground to deny registration.

Conclusion: Registration could not be denied on the sole ground of absence of the guardian's signature, and the Revenue's request for a reference failed.

---