1982 (7) TMI 61 - HC - Income Tax

High Court confirms registration for assessee-firm based on partnership deed compliance with Income-tax Act

The High Court of Calcutta upheld the Tribunal's decision to grant registration to the assessee-firm for the assessment years 1968-69 and 1969-70. The ... Firm, Registration Issues:Interpretation of section 184 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 and rules 22 to 24 of the Income-tax Rules, 1962 for assessing entitlement to registration for the assessee-firm.Analysis:For the assessment years 1968-69 and 1969-70, the High Court of Calcutta was presented with the question of whether the Tribunal erred in law by granting registration to the assessee-firm under section 184 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The firm, established by a partnership deed in 1965, included six partners and a minor, Bhimchand Mangalchand Chowdhury, admitted to the benefits of the partnership. The Tribunal considered the clauses of the partnership deed, particularly clause 12, which outlined the future inclusion of the minor as a partner upon attaining majority. The Tribunal noted that all partners had agreed to admit the minor to the partnership and that the terms of the partnership deed adequately covered the profit-sharing ratios. The Tribunal held that there was no requirement for a fresh deed of partnership upon the minor attaining majority, as the existing agreement sufficiently addressed the situation. The Tribunal directed the Income-tax Officer to grant registration to the assessee for the relevant years.The High Court concurred with the Tribunal's decision, emphasizing that the deed of partnership clearly outlined the procedure for admitting the minor as a partner upon reaching majority. The Court highlighted a similar decision by the Allahabad High Court, supporting the view that a separate deed of partnership was not necessary in such circumstances. The Court agreed that the existing partnership agreement, along with the subsequent acceptance by all partners of the minor's election to join the firm, fulfilled the requirements for registration under the Income-tax Act. Therefore, the Court answered the question in the negative, in favor of the assessee, and each party was directed to bear their own costs.In a separate opinion, Justice Suhas Chandra Sen concurred with the judgment, indicating agreement with the reasoning and conclusion reached by the Court. The judgment provides a detailed analysis of the partnership deed, the actions of the parties involved, and the legal requirements for registration under the Income-tax Act, ultimately upholding the Tribunal's decision to grant registration to the assessee-firm for the relevant assessment years.