Partnership registration requirements control validity of application where the deed expired and partner certification was missing.

Registration of a firm under the relevant rules required a subsisting instrument of partnership, a prescribed application with the original deed or a satisfactory explanation for its absence, and renewal supported by a partner's certificate confirming that the firm's constitution remained unchanged. The partnership deed had expired by efflux of time and was not renewed by any fresh written instrument. The application was signed by a clerk instead of a partner and lacked the required partner's certificate. On these facts, the application was not in the prescribed form and there was no valid basis for registration, so the refusal to register the firm was justified.

---

---

Issues: Whether, on the facts, the Income Tax Officer was entitled to refuse registration of the firm.

Analysis: Registration under the relevant rules required a firm constituted under an instrument of partnership to file the prescribed application with the original instrument, or a satisfactory explanation for non-production, and renewal depended on a proper application accompanied by a certificate signed by a partner that the constitution of the firm remained unchanged. The partnership deed had expired by efflux of time and was not renewed by any fresh written instrument. The application was signed by a clerk instead of a partner and was not accompanied by the required partner's certificate. On these facts, there was no subsisting instrument of partnership within the meaning of the rules and the application was not in the prescribed form.

Conclusion: The refusal to register the firm was justified, and the answer to the reference was in the affirmative, in favour of the Revenue.

---