Partnership registration turns on validity of the deed, and dual-capacity execution by one person does not by itself invalidate it.

A partnership deed is not invalid merely because the same individual signs in two distinct capacities, provided the arrangement still satisfies the legal requirements of a valid partnership, including plurality of partners. The court accepted the earlier Bombay view and distinguished the Privy Council decision relied on by the Revenue as factually different. On that basis, the firm remained validly registrable and the Commissioner was not justified in cancelling its registration.

---

---

Issues: Whether a firm was entitled to registration where one partner signed the partnership deed in two capacities, and whether the Commissioner was right in cancelling the registration.

Analysis: Registration under the taxing law depends upon the validity of the partnership. A partnership deed is not invalid merely because one individual signs in more than one capacity, where the arrangement still involves that person in both capacities along with other partners and satisfies the requirement of plurality of partners. The earlier Bombay decision directly supported this position and was not displaced by the Privy Council decision relied upon by the Revenue, which dealt with materially different facts. The objection that the same person could not enter into a partnership in two capacities was therefore rejected.

Conclusion: The firm was validly registrable, and the Commissioner was not right in cancelling the registration.

Final Conclusion: The reference was answered in favour of the assessee, with the firm held entitled to registration for the assessment year in question.

Ratio Decidendi: A partnership deed is not invalid merely because the same individual executes it in two distinct capacities, so long as the legal requirements of a valid partnership are otherwise satisfied.

---