Genuine partnership and procedural defects: firm registration cannot be refused where the firm exists validly and shares are specified.

Registration of a firm under the Income-tax Act depends on a genuine partnership evidenced by an instrument, specified profit shares, and compliance with the prescribed application requirements. Where the firm was in existence, operated in accordance with the deed, and the deceased partner's share was temporarily credited to a reserve fund pending a succession dispute, the temporary arrangement did not undermine registration. The absence of the legal heir's signature was treated as a procedural defect, not one going to the root of the firm's validity, because the heir had not been admitted as a partner de jure at the relevant time. On these facts, refusal or cancellation of registration was unsustainable.

---

---

Issues: Whether the assessee firm was entitled to registration under the Income-tax Act despite the death of a partner, the existence of a succession dispute, the parking of the deceased partner's share in a reserve fund, and the absence of the legal heir's signature on the registration documents.

Analysis: Registration of a firm under the relevant provisions depends on the firm being evidenced by an instrument of partnership, the individual shares being specified, the partnership being valid and genuine, and the application being made in the prescribed manner. The record showed that the partnership was real and operated in accordance with the deed, the profit shares were specified, and the temporary credit of the deceased partner's share to a specific reserve fund was consistent with the partnership arrangement pending resolution of the succession dispute. The absence of the legal heir's signature did not go to the root of the matter, especially when the heir had not been admitted as a partner de jure at the relevant time. Any defect in the application was at most procedural and could not justify refusal of registration on the facts of the case.

Conclusion: The refusal and cancellation of registration were unsustainable, and the assessee was entitled to be treated as a registered firm.

Final Conclusion: The appeals succeeded and the assessee firm's status as a registered firm was restored for the years in question.

Ratio Decidendi: A firm cannot be denied registration where it is genuinely in existence, its partnership terms are complied with, and any defect in the registration papers is merely procedural rather than going to the existence or validity of the firm.

---