1966 (11) TMI 7 - HC - Income Tax

Court rules in favor of firm's registration renewal under partnership deed, orders department to pay costs.

The court concluded that the firm was entitled to renewal of registration under section 26A. The partnership deed specified the shares of the partners in ... Renewal of registration - firm Issues Involved:1. Entitlement to renewal of registration under section 26A of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1921.2. Specification of shares in the partnership deed concerning profits and losses.3. Interpretation of section 26A and related rules and forms.4. Validity of the partnership deed with respect to the minor's admission to the benefits of partnership.Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:1. Entitlement to Renewal of Registration under Section 26A:The primary issue was whether the firm was entitled to renewal of registration under section 26A for the assessment year 1959-60. The firm, previously registered from 1950-51 to 1958-59, applied for renewal for 1959-60. The Income-tax Officer rejected the application, citing that the partnership deed did not specify the allocation of the remaining 1/7th share of the loss. The Tribunal upheld this decision, emphasizing that the conditions for obtaining registration benefits must be strictly complied with.2. Specification of Shares in the Partnership Deed Concerning Profits and Losses:The partnership deed stated that each of the six major partners would bear 1/7th of the losses, but it did not specify who would bear the remaining 1/7th share of the loss. The Tribunal interpreted this as a failure to comply with section 26A, which requires the instrument of partnership to specify the shares of each partner. However, the court found that a fair and liberal reading of the deed, particularly clause 3, indicated that the share of the losses was not strictly 1/7th for each partner. The clause specified that each partner would be liable for losses 'according to his share,' and the minor was only admitted to the benefits of the partnership, receiving 1/7th of the profits but not the losses.3. Interpretation of Section 26A and Related Rules and Forms:Section 26A requires an instrument of partnership specifying the individual shares of the partners. The prescribed form and rules emphasize the need to specify the shares in profits (or losses). The court noted that the form and rules do not necessitate a detailed specification of loss shares, as long as the shares in profits are clear. The purpose of section 26A is to prevent bogus firms from obtaining registration and to facilitate the department in determining each partner's share of profit without additional inquiries. The court concluded that the absence of a meticulously specified share of losses does not invalidate the deed for registration purposes.4. Validity of the Partnership Deed with Respect to the Minor's Admission to the Benefits of Partnership:The court examined whether the minor was admitted as a full partner or merely to the benefits of the partnership under section 30 of the Indian Partnership Act. The deed explicitly stated that the minor was admitted to the benefits of the partnership, receiving 1/7th of the profits but not bearing any losses. The court found that the partnership deed, construed reasonably and as a whole, did not admit the minor as a full partner, thus complying with legal requirements.Conclusion:The court concluded that the firm was entitled to renewal of registration under section 26A. The partnership deed, when interpreted reasonably, specified the shares of the partners in profits and appropriately admitted the minor to the benefits of the partnership without liability for losses. The question referred was answered in the affirmative, in favor of the assessee, and the department was ordered to pay the costs of the assessee, assessed at Rs. 250, with counsel's fee also assessed at Rs. 250.