Mandatory partnership deed evidence controls firm registration under tax law; uncertified copies justify rejection.

An application for registration of a firm under section 26A of the Income-tax Act, 1922 had to be supported by the original partnership instrument or, exceptionally, by a copy certified in writing by all partners where the original could not conveniently be produced. The court held that this requirement was mandatory under Rules 3 and 4 of the Indian Income-tax Rules, 1922. Because neither the original deed nor a properly certified copy signed by all partners was filed, the registration application did not comply with the prescribed conditions and was rightly rejected.

---

---

Issues: Whether the assessee's application for registration of the firm was rightly rejected for failure to file either the original instrument of partnership or a properly certified copy signed by all the partners.

Analysis: Rule 3 of the Indian Income-tax Rules, 1922 required the application to be accompanied ordinarily by the original instrument of partnership, and only exceptionally could a copy be accepted if the Income-tax Officer was satisfied that the original could not conveniently be produced and the copy was certified in writing by all the partners. Rule 4 contemplated the Income-tax Officer acting on the original instrument or a certified copy. On the admitted facts, neither the original deed nor a certified copy bearing the requisite certificate of all the partners was filed, so the application did not satisfy the prescribed conditions for registration.

Conclusion: The rejection of the registration application was ; the question was answered against the assessee and in favour of the Revenue.

Ratio Decidendi: An application for registration of a firm under section 26A of the Income-tax Act, 1922 must be supported by either the original partnership deed or a certified copy duly certified by all partners, and non-compliance with this mandatory requirement justifies rejection.

---