1952 (3) TMI 54

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

...., dated 7th August, 1942, and/or the deed, dated 24th March, 1948 ? (2) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the provisions of Section 9(3) of the Act are attracted to the income from property ?" We may at once point out that question No. (2) arises only out of the assessment and does not arise out of the order under Section 26A of the Act. The reference that was sought for was only against the order under Section 26A and not against the assessment order. Therefore question No. (2) should not have been referred by the Appellate Tribunal to this Court. The argument was therefore confined before us to question No. (1) alone. It is that question which we have to answer as arising out of the appellate order of ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....tanding the death of any one of the partners the partnership should not be dissolved. At the date of the family arrangement one of the sons, Dhanraj Vincent, was a minor and was represented by the eldest son as guardian. But in the partnership deed however Dhanraj Vincent signed as a major. Notwithstanding the execution of the partnership deed in 1942 no attempt was made by the assessees to get the deed registered under Section 26A of the Income-tax Act. For the first time an application to register the firm was made on the 11th March, 1946, during the assessment year 1945-46. The registration of this firm as a partnership was rejected by the Income-tax authorities and also by the Appellate Tribunal and at the instance of the assessee this ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....partnership was considered invalid as Dhanraj signed the document as a major while in fact he was a minor. The view taken was that because a minor could not be made a partner and as the deed purported to make Dhanraj a partner the whole of that deed was void and of no legal effect. The other aspect, whether the deed could not be so construed as to imply that the parties intended thereby to admit Dhanraj to the benefits of partnership was also rejected on the ground that the two could not be separated from the document, i.e , the intention to constitute a partnership could not be severed and from that an inference to admit the minor as a partner could not be made. We are however unable to accept this view. If the minor signed as major he cou....