Court allows continuation of registration under Income-tax Act without written partnership deed

The court ruled in favor of the assessee, stating that registration under Section 184 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, could continue for subsequent years even without a written partnership deed as long as the firm operates with the same constitution and partners' shares. The judgment emphasized that compliance with declaration requirements suffices for continuation, distinguishing it from the previous annual registration requirement under the 1922 Act. The court held that the absence of a partnership deed for the assessment years 1968-69 and 1969-70 did not invalidate the registration.

---

---

Issues:
Continuation of registration for the assessment years 1968-69 and 1969-70 without a written partnership deed.

Analysis:
The case involved a firm that was initially constituted under a partnership deed for three years, which expired in 1965. Despite no fresh deed being written, the partnership continued with the same partners and their shares. Registration was granted based on the original deed for several accounting years. The issue arose when the continuation of registration for 1968-69 and 1969-70 was canceled due to the absence of a partnership deed during those years.

Under Section 184 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, registration requires an instrument evidencing the partnership, but for continuation, a deed is not mandatory as long as the firm continues as before. The provision mandates that registration granted shall continue for subsequent years unless there is a change in the firm's constitution or partners' shares, which must be declared before the assessment. The 1922 Act required annual registration applications, unlike the 1961 Act, which only necessitates a declaration for continuation.

Citing precedents under the 1922 Act, the revenue argued for the necessity of a partnership deed for continuation. However, a judgment under the 1961 Act emphasized that registration persists for subsequent years upon compliance with the declaration requirements, irrespective of a current partnership deed. The court held that the existence of a deed is not essential for the continuation of registration under Section 184. The judgment favored the assessee, ruling that registration could continue without a written partnership deed.

---