1995 (2) TMI 6

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....wards the end of the accounting year, when she became major ? " This case relates to the assessment year 1982-83. The respondent-assessee formed a partnership firm as evidenced by a partnership deed dated February 23, 1982, although the partnership was formed by an oral agreement with effect from January 1, 1981, for carrying on the business of manufacturing of veneer, used by the plywood industry. The firm comprised five partners, namely, (1) Sajjan Kr. Bhajanka, (2) Prem Kr. Bhajanka, (3) Nirmal Kr. Bhajanka, (4) Smt. Bimla Devi Chamaria and (5) Smt. Sangita Devi Chamaria. The assessee-firm applied for registration under Form No. 11 on March 24, 1982, before the Income-tax Officer but he refused to entertain the same on the ground that....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... observed by the Tribunal is that the firm constituted by an oral agreement has not been found to be a bogus firm even by the Income-tax Officer, as can be seen from the order annexure A. This court, considering the essential requirements of sections 184 and 185 of the Income-tax Act, held as follows (at page 559 of 125 ITR) : "The cumulative effect of sections 184 and 185 of the Act read with the relevant rules is that if the application for registration made by a firm gives the requisite particulars prescribed by sections 184 and 185 of the Act and the Rules, the Income-tax Officer cannot reject the prayer, if there is a firm in existence ; a firm may be said to be not in existence if it is a bogus or in other words not a genuine one o....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....iable for all the obligations of the firm 'from the date of his admission to the benefits of partnership'. It follows, therefore, that he may, either by a consentient act on his part, become a partner or become so by his inaction for six months as allowed. On a perusal of section 30(5) and (7) it becomes clear that if during the subsistence of the partnership a person who was admitted, at the time when he was a minor, to the benefits of partnership does not elect to become a partner within six months of his attaining majority, would become a partner after the expiry of the said period (six months) and thereafter his rights and liabilities would be the same as those of the other partners as from the date of his admission to the benefits of t....