Partitioned family business and valid adult partnership recognized for income-tax registration despite minor's admission to benefits.

A Hindu undivided family business can be treated as partitioned for income-tax purposes without physical division of the undertaking, if the shares are specified and the accounts show separate treatment; the cloth business was therefore no longer joint family property. A partnership between competent adult coparceners remains valid even if a minor is mentioned in the deed, provided the minor is only admitted to the benefits of the firm and not made a partner by contract; the business was thus capable of registration under Section 26A of the Income-tax Act, 1922.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the cloth business ceased to belong to the Hindu undivided family and stood partitioned in definite portions so as to be excluded from the joint family assets for income-tax purposes. (ii) Whether a valid partnership in respect of the cloth business existed and could be registered under Section 26A of the Income-tax Act, 1922.

Issue (i): Whether the cloth business ceased to belong to the Hindu undivided family and stood partitioned in definite portions so as to be excluded from the joint family assets for income-tax purposes.

Analysis: Under the Income-tax Act, a partition of a joint family business is not required to be followed by physical division of the business itself; it is sufficient if the business is divided in definite portions by specification of shares and appropriate accounting entries. The two contemporaneous documents, the partition deed and the partnership deed, showed that the business was treated as separated from the family assets, that the shares were specified, and that the profits were separately credited in the accounts. The absence of a separately divided capital did not negate partition, since a joint family business may be carried on without any fixed capital until the business is separated. The recital that the business was to be carried on jointly only meant continuation as a separate firm and not retention as joint family property. The participation of the minor did not invalidate the partition, as the partition among the adult coparceners was complete and fair and the minor's interests were not shown to be prejudiced.

Conclusion: The cloth business had ceased to belong to the Hindu undivided family and the finding of the Tribunal on this point was erroneous.

Issue (ii): Whether a valid partnership in respect of the cloth business existed and could be registered under Section 26A of the Income-tax Act, 1922.

Analysis: A minor cannot be made a partner by contract, but where two adults validly enter into a partnership, the minor may be admitted to the benefits of that partnership. The deed, read with the subsequent conduct of the parties, showed that the two adult brothers intended to continue the business as partners and to confer benefits on the minor, with profits being credited in his name in the accounts. The presence of the minor in the document did not destroy the validity of the partnership as between the adults. On that basis, the partnership was legally existent, and the minor could be treated as admitted to its benefits for income-tax purposes.

Conclusion: A valid partnership existed in respect of the cloth business and it was capable of registration under Section 26A of the Income-tax Act, 1922.

Final Conclusion: Both referred questions were answered in favour of the assessee, resulting in recognition of the business as separated from the Hindu undivided family and acceptance of the partnership arrangement for tax purposes.

Ratio Decidendi: For income-tax purposes, a joint family business may be partitioned in definite portions without physical division of the business itself, and a partnership between competent adults remains valid notwithstanding an incompetent minor being included, if the minor is in substance admitted to the benefits of that partnership.

---