Partnership registration cannot be refused for curable defects when a minor attains majority and genuineness is undisputed.

Where the genuineness of a partnership is not in doubt, registration of the firm cannot be refused merely because a minor admitted to the benefits of partnership attains majority without a fresh deed being executed. A Board circular supported that position, and the absence of a new partnership deed did not justify denial of registration. A later rectification of a defect in the registration application, including delayed signature by the newly major partner, was also treated as curable and insufficient to defeat registration. The firm was therefore entitled to registration, and the assessee succeeded on both issues.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether registration of the firm could be refused because a minor admitted to the benefits of partnership had attained majority and no fresh partnership deed was executed; (ii) whether registration could be denied because the application was signed late by the newly major partner and the defect was removed later.

Issue (i): Whether registration of the firm could be refused because a minor admitted to the benefits of partnership had attained majority and no fresh partnership deed was executed.

Analysis: The genuineness of the partnership was not in doubt. A Board circular directed that registration should not be refused merely because a minor admitted to the benefits of partnership had become a full partner on attaining majority and no new deed had been drawn up. The view that the old deed could not support registration was therefore not accepted for the purpose of denying the assessee the benefit of registration.

Conclusion: The refusal of registration on this ground was not justified and the assessee succeeded on this issue.

Issue (ii): Whether registration could be denied because the application was signed late by the newly major partner and the defect was removed later.

Analysis: The application had been filed with the signatures of the other major partners, and when a defect was noticed, a further application was filed to cure it. The delay was thus in removing the defect, not in making the application itself, and such late rectification was held insufficient to defeat registration.

Conclusion: The delay in curing the defect did not justify rejection of registration and the assessee succeeded on this issue.

Final Conclusion: The assessee firm was held entitled to registration and the appeal was allowed.

Ratio Decidendi: Where the genuineness of a partnership is not in doubt, registration of a firm cannot be refused merely because a minor admitted to the benefits of partnership attains majority without a fresh deed, and a curable defect in the registration application will not by itself defeat registration.

---