Bona fide partnership deed defects and delayed registration filing do not necessarily defeat firm registration

A firm was treated as a real and existing family concern, so a mistaken description of one partner as a minor did not by itself defeat registration where the error was bona fide and later cured by a deed showing all partners as majors. The delay in filing the registration application was also treated as directory rather than fatal, because the application was filed before assessment was completed. On these facts, technical defects in the deed and timing of the application were not sufficient to deny registration.

---

---

Issues: Whether the assessee-firm was entitled to registration under the Income-tax Act despite the defect in the partnership deed regarding one partner's majority status and the delay in filing the registration application.

Analysis: The firm was found to be a real and existing family concern and not a sham or pretence. The mistaken description of one son as a minor, though he had attained majority, was treated as a bona fide error arising from the family's belief about the date of majority. That defect was also cured by the later deed showing all partners as majors. The delay in filing the registration application was held not to be fatal because the requirement was treated as directory and the application was filed before the assessment was completed. Technical defects in the form and timing were viewed as capable of rectification and not sufficient to defeat registration on the facts of the case.

Conclusion: The refusal of registration was not justified and the assessee-firm was entitled to registration.

---