Partnership registration correspondence may be cured by a supplementary letter, preserving timeliness despite incomplete acceptance of terms.

Where correspondence used to support firm registration is incomplete because one party has not expressly accepted all proposed terms, the defect may be cured by a supplementary letter either waiving the remaining conditions or recording express acceptance. The court treated the amended application as the same application made within time, so the registration request was not rejected on that preliminary ambiguity. The question referred was therefore not taken up at that stage.

---

---

Issues: Whether the documents produced constituted an instrument of partnership under Sub-section (14) of Section 2 of the Income-tax Act, 1922, and whether the assessees could be allowed to remove the ambiguity by filing an additional letter.

Analysis: The objection taken by the income-tax authorities was that the correspondence did not amount to a complete agreement because the senior partner's reply accepted only the profit-sharing terms and did not expressly deal with all the conditions proposed by the junior partners. The Court held that the proper course was to permit the parties to complete the record by an additional letter either waiving the other conditions or expressly accepting them. The amended application was directed to be treated as the same application made in time, and the question referred was held not to arise at that stage.

Conclusion: The assessees were entitled to file an additional letter curing the ambiguity, and the registration application was to be treated as timely; the objection was not accepted at that stage.

Ratio Decidendi: Where correspondence relied on for registration of a firm is incomplete only because one set of terms has not been expressly accepted, the defect may be cured by a supplementary document, and the original application may still be treated as made in time.

---