Retrospective partnership registration barred where the deed was executed after the accounting year and did not prove prior existence.

A partnership claimed to have been formed orally during the accounting year could not be registered for that earlier period under section 26A where the written deed was executed only after the accounting period. The Court applied the settled view that registration depends on the partnership's existence during the relevant accounting year, and a later deed cannot relate back to create retrospective status. On that basis, the firm was held not entitled to registration for the relevant year, and the question was answered against the assessee.

---

---

Issues: Whether a partnership allegedly formed orally during the accounting year, but evidenced by a deed executed after the accounting period, could be registered for the earlier period under section 26A.

Analysis: A prior Division Bench view had settled that where the partnership is first alleged orally and the written deed comes into existence only after the accounting period, the firm cannot be treated as having existed before or during the accounting year for registration purposes. Registration under the provision depends on the existence of the partnership during the relevant accounting period, and a later deed cannot relate back so as to confer that status retrospectively.

Conclusion: The firm was not entitled to registration for the relevant accounting year and the question was answered against the assessee.

Ratio Decidendi: A partnership evidenced only by a deed executed after the accounting period cannot be registered retrospectively for an earlier accounting year when its alleged oral origin is not sufficient to establish existence during that period.

---