Renewal of firm registration does not require an erstwhile minor's signature if he was a minor throughout the relevant accounting year.

Renewal of firm registration under Section 26A and Rule 6 turned on whether an erstwhile minor had to sign the application after attaining majority before filing. The High Court held that the rule required personal signatures only from partners who were not minors during the relevant accounting year, so a person who remained a minor throughout that year was not obliged to sign merely because he had become major by the filing date. Refusal of renewal on that ground was inconsistent with the statutory scheme, and renewal of registration was upheld.

---

---

Issues: Whether the firm was entitled to renewal of registration for the assessment year 1961-62 when one person admitted to the benefits of partnership as a minor had attained majority by the time the renewal application was filed and had not signed the application.

Analysis: The application for renewal was governed by Section 26A of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922 and Rule 6 of the Indian Income-tax Rules, 1922. The rule required personal signatures only of partners who were not minors. Since the person in question was a minor throughout the relevant accounting year, he was not required to sign the renewal application merely because he had attained majority before the application was submitted. The refusal to renew on that ground was therefore inconsistent with the statutory scheme.

Conclusion: The issue was decided in favour of the assessee, and the Tribunal was justified in granting renewal of registration.

Ratio Decidendi: A renewal application for registration of a firm need be signed only by partners who are not minors during the relevant accounting year; attainment of majority before the filing date does not by itself require the erstwhile minor's signature if the statutory rule does not so provide.

---