Partnership registration depends on the deed itself; revenue cannot recast individual partners as representatives to deny validity.

A partnership deed showing 18 persons joining in their individual capacity entitled the firm to registration, because partner identity and capacity must be gathered from the deed itself. Where the deed did not show any partner acting as karta of a Hindu undivided family or in any representative capacity, the Income-tax Officer could not look beyond its recitals to add family members or representatives and treat the constitution as illegal. On that footing, the firm did not contravene the provision relied on by the revenue, and refusal of registration on illegality grounds was unjustified.

---

---

Issues: Whether the assessee-firm, as constituted by the partnership deed, was entitled to registration under section 26A of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, when the revenue sought to treat some partners as representing Hindu undivided families or another firm so as to make the constitution illegal under section 4 of the Indian Companies Act.

Analysis: The partnership deed showed 18 persons entering the firm in their individual capacity. There was nothing in the deed to indicate that any partner had joined as karta of a Hindu undivided family or in any representative capacity. On the settled rule that the identity and capacity of partners must be gathered from the deed itself, the Income-tax Officer could not go behind its recitals to enlarge the number of partners by adding family members or representatives and thereby deny registration. Since only 18 individuals had entered into the partnership, the constitution did not offend the provision relied upon by the revenue.

Conclusion: The assessee was entitled to registration and refusal on the ground of illegality was not justified.

---