1986 (1) TMI 80 - HC - Income Tax

Invalid Partnership Deed Due to Minor Partner: High Court Upholds Tribunal Decision

The High Court upheld the Tribunal's decision, ruling that the partnership deed was invalid due to one partner being a minor at the time of execution. ... Firm, Registration Issues:Validity of partnership deed for registration under section 185 of the Income-tax Act, 1961.Analysis:The case involved a firm comprising four partners, where the Income-tax Officer refused registration for the assessment years 1967-68, 1968-69, and 1969-70 based on the contention that one of the partners, Sajjan Kumar Agarwala, was a minor at the time of executing the partnership deed. The Income-tax Officer held the deed of partnership as void, leading to the refusal of registration. The Appellate Assistant Commissioner, however, accepted the date of birth as June 27, 1947, based on supporting evidence like horoscope and affidavits, and directed registration for the firm. The Department appealed to the Tribunal, which rejected the evidence supporting the date of birth as June 27, 1947, and upheld the Income-tax Officer's decision to refuse registration.The Tribunal refused to refer certain questions raised by the assessee, stating they were questions of fact. The Tribunal's finding that Sajjan Kumar Agarwala was born on September 27, 1951, was considered a factual determination. The High Court emphasized that it cannot reassess evidence when the Tribunal has already made factual findings. Citing legal precedents, the High Court reiterated that it must confine itself to the facts found by the Tribunal and cannot challenge those findings unless specific questions are referred.Ultimately, the High Court upheld the Tribunal's decision, stating that the deed of partnership was invalid due to Sajjan Kumar Agarwala being a minor at the time of execution. The court ruled against granting registration under section 185 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, in favor of the Revenue. The judgment was forwarded to the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal as per the provisions of the Act.Judges:- NAZIR AHMAD J.: Provided a detailed analysis of the case, emphasizing the factual findings and legal precedents guiding the decision-making process.- UDAY SINHA J.: Concurred with the decision and analysis presented by Justice Nazir Ahmad.