TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1981 (8) TMI 118
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....revious year ended on 18th Jan., 1975 in relation to the asst. yr. 1975-76. For the asst. yr. 1976-77 which is the earlier of the two years under consideration the previous year commenced on 19th Jan., 1975. Lalitha attained majority on 15th April, 1975 and she elected to become a full-fledged partner. There was a second instrument of partnership executed which stated that certain of the partners had retired and minor Balaji had gone out. The partnership deed was dt. 5th Dec., 1975 and stated to have come into existence from 1st Nov., 1975. We give below the comparison of the partners according to the deed of 12th Dec., 1972 which was in force upto 31st Oct., 1975 and the partners according to the deed of 5th Dec., 1975 which was in force f....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....sons have agreed to take in the 8th and 9th persons as partners. But there was no mention of 10th person in the deed i.e., Lalitha having been taken in as partner by others though she is the signatory to the deed and the deed states that she was liable to share the profits as well as in losses which was specified. According to the ITO since no instrument of partnership was executed when Lalitha attained majority on 15th April, 1975 the firm could not be granted registration for the asst. yr. 1976-77 for which the assessee had filed two returns one for the period from 19th Jan., 1975 to 31st Oct., 1975 and another from 1st Nov., 1975 to 31st March, 1976. Secondly since the later deed had mentioned Lalitha was represented by Paramasivan the I....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....y there had to be a mention in the partnership deed of such fact and since Lalitha attained majority on 15th April, 1975 a fresh instrument of partnership was executed w.e.f. 1st Nov., 1975 only, he took the view that during the interregnum from 15th April, 1975 to 31st Oct., 1975 there was no valid instrument of partnership and therefore, registration could not be granted. He did not deal with other reasons which weighed with the ITO in refusing registration. 3. In appeal before us the ld. counsel for the assessee submitted that in terms of s. 30(7)(b) of the Partnership Act r/w. s.4 thereof where a minor elected to become a partner, his share in the property and profits of the firm shall be the share to which he was entitled to a minor. ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the deed could not lead to such an inference and for all these reasons registration should have been granted. The ld. Deptl. Rep. submitted that for the reasons given in the order for 1976-77 registration was also refused for asst. yr. 1977-78. He took us through the various reasons relied on by the ITO and submitted that these were valid reasons for refusal of registration. 4. We have considered the rival submissions. When Lalitha attained majority on 15th April, 1975 she had to elect whether to become a partner or not and the period expired on 15th Oct., 1975 when she became a partner. Since there was not to be any change in the profit sharing ratio and she was not to be made liable for losses there was no need to execute a new partnersh....