1986 (5) TMI 63

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....nd this had undergone certain changes with effect from 10-3-1976. The form was reconstituted by indenture dated 15-6-1917. As per that indenture, A. J. Lopez and three other partners were relieved. The reconstituted firm comprised of four partners (Majors). They are the wife and three sons of A. J. Lopez. These partners admitted a minor (Silvister Lopez) to the benefits of the firm. The minor was then aged 17 and he was the youngest son of the retired partner A.J. Lopez and the first partner in the reconstituted firm, Mrs. Floe Lopez. The reconstituted firm was effective from 31-5-1977. 3. The partners applied for registration by filing Form Nos. 11 and 11A and the four partners had signed it. The Income-tax Officer passed an order under....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....n dated 15-6-1977. The minor Silvister Lopez was merely admitted to the benefits of the firm. It is a document strictly complying section 30 of the Partnership Act. 7. The Income-tax Officer comments that in the absence of signature of the guardian of the minor to the document, registration to the firm cannot be granted. We may usefully refer to the decision of the Bombay High Court in the case of CIT v. S. Moonalal & Co. [1976] 104 ITR 688. In this reported case, the High Court, upon examination of the document, found that the minor had been only admitted to the benefits of the partnership though the natural guardian had signed the document. Tulzapurkar J. observed : ". . . the provisions in the deed of partnership showed that the mi....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....rents. In the circumstances, the consent of the guardian is implicit in itself. 9. Rules do not prescribe that Form 11 or 11A is to be signed by the guardian of the minor who is admitted to the benefits of the firm. On the other hand, there is clear indication in Rule 22(5) that the form should be signed only by the partners. A minor admitted to the benefits of the firm is not a partner and it would be a contradiction in terms to say that minor admitted to the benefits of the firm is a partner. The first two objections taken by the Income-tax Officer have no real validity. 10. With regard to the other objection, the profits of the firm had been arrived at on time basis. Instead of closing the accounts as on the date of reconstitution,....