Partnership registration becomes effective on delivery of the statement, making the income-tax registration application timely.

Under the Partnership Act, registration of a firm took effect when the prescribed statement was delivered to the Registrar, because section 58 made delivery the operative act and section 59 treated the Registrar's entry and filing as merely ministerial. The court held that marginal notes could not override the clear statutory text, so the firm became registered on delivery of the statement. On the Income-tax Act issue, an application under section 26A was not barred where it was presented while the firm was unregistered but the firm became registered before the Income-tax Officer disposed of the application. The application was therefore treated as in time, and the reference was answered in favour of the assessee.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether a firm becomes registered under the Partnership Act upon delivery of the prescribed statement to the Registrar or only when the Registrar makes the entry and files the statement; (ii) whether an application under section 26A of the Income-tax Act was barred by limitation or could be treated as in time because the firm became registered before the Income-tax Officer disposed of the application.

Issue (i): Whether a firm becomes registered under the Partnership Act upon delivery of the prescribed statement to the Registrar or only when the Registrar makes the entry and files the statement.

Analysis: The operative language of section 58 of the Partnership Act states that registration may be effected by sending or delivering the prescribed statement to the Registrar. Section 59, which requires the Registrar to record an entry and file the statement, was treated as dealing with the Registrar's ministerial function rather than the act that brings registration into existence. The marginal notes could not control the clear wording of the body of the provisions. The conclusion was reinforced by the statutory scheme and by the view that the Registrar acts as a recording officer, while the filing and entry are consequential acts.

Conclusion: Registration became effective when the statement was delivered to the Registrar on 20 October 1955, and not when the Registrar later made the entry and filed the statement.

Issue (ii): Whether an application under section 26A of the Income-tax Act was barred by limitation or could be treated as in time because the firm became registered before the Income-tax Officer disposed of the application.

Analysis: Rule 2 distinguished between an unregistered firm and a registered firm, but the decisive question was the state of affairs when the application was finally dealt with. The application had been presented while the firm was unregistered, yet the firm became registered before the Income-tax Officer passed the order. The reasoning adopted a strict construction of limitation and held that a procedural bar should not be extended by implication where the statutory conditions were satisfied before final disposal. The application therefore fell within the scope of rule 2(b) once registration had taken effect.

Conclusion: The application under section 26A was filed in time and was not out of time.

Final Conclusion: The reference was answered in favour of the assessee, holding that the firm's registration took effect on delivery of the statement and that the registration application was within time.

Ratio Decidendi: Where the statute provides that registration is effected by delivery of the prescribed statement, the registrar's later entry and filing are ministerial acts only, and an application governed by a registration-based time limit may be treated as timely if the qualifying registration occurs before the authority disposes of the application.

---